May 24, 2022 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:45] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: In accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical media location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com, youtube.com forward slash mountain view Gov, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period. by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-9009128. And entry webinar ID 84351267142. Any emails received by 4:30 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. City Attorney Lowe will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items listed for closed session.

[00:00:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. There are 2 items on the close session agenda for this evening. Item 2.one is a conference with labor negotiators pursuant to California government code section. 54957.6. The agency designated representatives, um, are the city of Mountain View assistant city manager, chief operating officer Audrey Seymour Ramberg, the human resources director, Sue Rush, and Charles Zakai of Sloan, Zakai, Young, and Wong, LLP. The employee organizations are Service Employees International Union, SCIU, Local 521, The Eagles Association, The Police Officers Association, International Association of Firefighters, Local 1965, Unrepresented, fire managers, unrepresented, police managers, unrepresented, department heads, council appointees, unrepresented, confidential employees, and unrepresented, hourly employees, item 2.2, is a conference with real property, Negotiators, pursuant to government code, section 54956.8, the property at issue is 909, San Rafael Avenue, the agency negotiators are... Angelo LaMonica, Real Property Program Administrator, and Don Cameron, Public Works Director. The negotiating party is Newmark, and, um, under negotiation is priced in terms of purchase. Very exciting.

[00:02:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: But any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda. If so, please click the raised hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. See no members of the public wishing to speak. The council will now recess to close session and return to this webinar at 630 p.m. for the regular session. See you then.

[00:05:19] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the city council in the Shoreline Regional Park community of May 24, 2022. Before we get started, I would like to know that the items tentatively scheduled and noticed for tonight's meeting regarding 590 Castistry. 365 to 405 San Antonio Road, and 2585 to 2595 California Street, have been continued to a date uncertain, and will not be heard at tonight's meeting. Updated notices will be sent out and posted once these items have been rescheduled. I will now read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city. clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical median location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting. Live may do so at Mountain View.letcherstar.com. Youtube.com forward slash Mountain View Gov, and on Comcast Channel 26. Noted on the meeting agenda. Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov slash meeting to enter the Zoom webinar or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

[00:59:37] Unknown Speaker: Pledge allegiance to the flag. The United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[00:59:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. City clerk will take attendance viral call.

[00:59:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Koba. Council member Lieber?

[01:00:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[01:00:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek,

[01:00:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here,

[01:00:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, Shaw, Walter.

[01:00:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here?

[01:00:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Ice Mayor Hicks.

[01:00:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here?

[01:00:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[01:00:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:00:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Unicor?

[01:00:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Well, now move to item 3 presentations. Please note, these are presentations only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. First is 3.one mental health awareness month proclamation. And we will now invite the proclamation recipient to join. Area. Uh, Randy, uh, symbol decker. Somebody can help. Find her there. She is. Um, thank you for joining us. We're happy to be joined this evening by local middle school student and mental health activist, Aria, uh, Ranny, single Decker, to accept this proclamation. The proclamation reads, whereas one in 5 adults and one in 6th youth in California experience mental health illness each year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Health. And whereas mental health is the foundation for wellness. And all residents experience times of difficulty and stress in their lives that can impact their mental health. And whereas education and prevention are effective ways to reduce the burden of mental health conditions, and the devastating impacts they can create on individuals and our community. And whereas in challenging times, it is essential that we encourage relatives, friends, coworkers, and residents, to recognize the signs of mental health, and guide those in need to appropriate services and support. And whereas the city of Mountain View has prioritized mental health by completing and continuing to support both short and long-term action items as part of the 2020 city council goal to assess gaps in youth mental health services. And whereas the city council's fiscal years, 2021 to 23 work plan, includes a priority project to explore alternative mental health crisis response methods. And whereas the city of Mountain View has provided programming, to strengthen resiliency effort in mental health routines, such as 18 wellness retreat, monthly wellness focused workshops for teens and parents in the community, and suicide prevention training, for the community and partnership with the county of Santa Clara. And whereas the city of Mountain View is committed to mental health excellence in the workplace by prioritizing the mental health needs of our employees through training, engagement, flexible schedules, access to employee assistance programs, and behavioral health benefits and tools, and facilitating a culture that supports mental well-being. And whereas the city of Mountain View continues to collaborate with and support community-based organizations and healthcare providers to promote mental health wellness and support prevention and treatment efforts. And whereas we call appall, we call upon all residents, businesses, and schools of the city of Mountain View to commit to increasing awareness, sharing knowledge, and reducing the barriers and stigma associated with seeking mental health services. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, miracle city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as mental health awareness month. Ranny, would you like to say a few words?

[01:03:40] Aria Ranny Sneldecker: Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited to accept this proclamation. It really means a lot that the council has focused on mental health, as the youth mental health crisis has been boosted by the pandemic. And I just want to thank my mom, dad, Dr. Stephen Hinshaw, Miss Gay Kraus, Mr. Alex Briscoe, Miss Galassi, Mr. Sayer, Mr. Lao, and Miss Miss Sahara, for supporting me along my journey. I'm 2 years into my mental advocacy, and it's really changed me. I've become an advocate for more peer-to-peer communication and support and mental health education in schools. I made a documentary about mental health parity. And I just want to say, I believe we need to eliminate the stigma around mental health in order to create parity between mental and physical health challenges in order for everyone, teens, tweens, adults, to get the mental health care they aid. And I believe that my generation will be the one to make those changes. So thanks again so much for choosing me to accept this proclamation, and thanks so much for having me.

[01:04:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your advocacy, for members of the council who have not seen the documentary, I would encourage you to, is very powerful. Uh and very well made. When any member of the council likes to say a few words.

[01:04:57] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: By snare his. Very few words. I was just gonna say congratulations, and I agree with you, Mayor, that it's worth seeing the documentary, which I did have the opportunity to see. Ronnie, can you tell us, is there any opportunity for people, uh, members of the public who may be interested, any opportunity to see it? Is it streaming somewhere?

[01:05:21] Aria Ranny Sneldecker: Uh, yeah, I have it on my YouTube channel, RA Ronnie Sneldecker, just look up my name and you'll be able to find it in YouTube.

[01:05:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. Very much. If there are no other comments from the council, Well, thank you very much for joining us and accepting the proclamation, and again, uh, very much appreciate your advocacy on behalf of, um, those in our community who uh, really could benefit from the services that you're promoting. So thank you for joining us, and we will now move on to 3.2 recognition of outgoing youth advisory committee members. Uh, and I believe, uh, Emily Chan, who has joined us, uh, will be receiving the proclamation, or not, there is no proclamation. But you're happy to be joined this evening by youth advisory committee chair, Emily Chan. Six of these advisory committee members are graduating this June. Being a part of this committee requires time, effort, and leadership. We would like to thank Annie, Eliza, Emily, Hannah, Lauren, and Richard for their hard work, dedication, and positive contributions to our community. These members, some of which have been involved with the committee since middle school, have represented an important team voice and worked hard to accomplish work plan items year after year. Though a virtual committee over the past year, each of these members helped plan and lead several successful in-person events, including the teen wellness retreat. Teen open mic night, and find your 15 career day. These 6 members also contributed to the view teen center by attending drop in activities and offering ideas to improve the center. Lastly, they used their voice to relaunch teen week, teen week, and the teen friendly business award, which highlighted how valuable teams are to our community. Thank you again for your service to the Mountain View community through your time on the youth advisory committee. We wish you every success in your next endeavors. Emily, would you like to say a few words?

[01:07:18] Emily Chan: Yeah, thank you so much for having me and, um, for recognizing us. I think it's super special. I joined Yak, my sophomore year, and so that was pre-pandemic, and I got to see how things were run. And, um, moving into virtual, obviously, there were some difficult transitions, but I think it was really cool to see how, um, me and the other seniors as well really stepped up to kind of, uh, help our yak through that time and just remind everyone about what we were here to do and, um, keep us motivated to, um, have our events. And I think it's really fulfilling to see that how much we still accomplished over the pandemic. Um, and I've just really had a great time on yak. I've met some really amazing people that I don't think I would have, and it's just a great opportunity to be involved in the community. And so I think I speak on behalf of all the other seniors, let me just say, this has been an amazing opportunity, and we are so grateful, and we will definitely miss it. Um, but yeah, thank you so much.

[01:08:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And we hope that your participation in civic matters doesn't end here. There are many other opportunities to participate, including other advisory bodies for you to join. Would any member of the council like to speak? Council member Abi Koga.

[01:08:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to offer my congratulations to our, um, departing yak members. Um, certainly, if you've been, you're a unique group, having to had to go through the pandemic, and I just want to, um, you know, acknowledge all of your hard work and your enthusiasm, despite the various challenges that the last couple of years have offered. And, um, I'm just really pleased at how the, yeah, kids grown over the years and you play a really instrumental part of our community. So, um, thank you for all of your hard work and dedication. And, um, I wish you all, um, well as you move on to your, um, college, uh, career. And, um, yes, please come back and, um, And, um, if you do, and, um, we would love to have you, uh, get involved and participate in in our city activities again. But congratulations and best wishes to all of you.

[01:09:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The other member of the council machine to speak. Not, thank you very much, Emily, for joining us and for your, uh, dedication and service, uh, on the yak and to our community. Very grateful. Uh, we will now take public comment for the presentation items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so, please click the race, hand button, zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh, so I see Ruth House. Uh, you have your hand up. Um, this is for the 2 presentation items uh, that we've just heard. Let's go ahead and set 3 minutes. Ruth, you are the 1st speaker. Ruth, are you able to unmute yourself? If not, then, um, maybe you can try again later, uh, in the, uh, non-agenda public comment period. I'm sorry, we weren't able to, um, get that to work. Uh, so now uh, we will proceed to the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any member of the council like to pull an item. Let me get my note here, vice Mayor Hicks.

[01:11:22] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I do not want to pull an item. But I do want to highlight 2 of the items, 4.4 and 4.5, so just tell me whenever you'd like me to do that, I will, I just want to kind of bring them to the attention of the public in particular. Um, well, let's do that um, after the public comment, if that's okay.

[01:11:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Um, Any other. Council wishing to pull an item. Um, I'm gonna pull 4.3 Shoreline Boulevard interim bus lane. And if there are no other items, then, um, we will earn to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raise hand button zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Uh, let's go ahead and allocate 3 minutes for the consent calendar. The 1st speaker is uh, Eva Tang.

[01:12:30] Eva Tang: Hello, am I on Mrid? Like, can you hear you? Okay, great. Okay. Hi, um, uh, Eva Tang here. Uh, I wanted to pull, um, 4 pint one, um, which is uh, the resolution to continue remote public meetings during a state of emergency, um, just to bring attention to the fact that, um, COVID is, you know, raging across the county. Um, there are, uh, I mean, the case rate has risen a lot. I'm sorry, my cat has a lot of opinions. Um, and um, uh, uh, the access to meetings has been really, really important to the public. Um, so I, I, I believe that 4.one is particularly important. Um, thank you. Thats my time. Thank you.

[01:13:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, Albert, I see you have your hand up. Um, I've pulled 4.3. I should have clarified this. will take public comment for 4.3, the shoreline bus lane separately. Um, right after we uh, conclude the balance of the consent calendar. Uh, the next speaker is mine.

[01:13:36] Unknown Speaker: Hi, um, is it, uh, I got a, uh, um, mail say that, uh, regarding overnight parking restriction between 2 AM.

[01:13:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That item will be heard later in the agenda.

[01:13:56] Public Speaker: Oh, okay, thank you.

[01:13:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Uh, the next speaker is Alex Brown.

[01:14:07] Alex Brown: Just want to agree with Eva. A lot of my neighbors have been able to participate during this epidemic in ways that they couldn't otherwise, and I would like to ensure that they continue to be able to participate in these meetings. So, allowing for hybrid or remote meetings is very important to a lot of members of the community.

[01:14:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thanks. Very much. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[01:14:38] Tim McKenzie: Hi, uh, Tim McKenzie, he, him, pronouns just would like to echo how important hybrid is for a way for the community to be engaged. Thank you.

[01:14:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I've seen no other public comment will return to the council, uh, for uh, deliberation. Uh, and I'll note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include the reading of the title of the resolutions attached to 4.one and 4.2. I understand that members of the council wanted to highlight or speak to. Some of the items before we take emotions, so let's go ahead and do that. Bye snare Hicks.

[01:15:25] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I just wanted to highlight 2 of the consent calendar items that I know a lot of members of the public have been interested in. One is 4.4, the active transportation clan. Uh, so we've gotten email, particularly from one of our big pedestrian, uh, activist Joel Dean, saying that, um, they, he hopes we, uh, take a close look, in particular, at walkability experts, rather than our usual consultants to do, to look at this important transportation mode and do it justice. I wanted to let him and anyone else interested in walkability, know that staff. When I read the report, I was pleased to see that staff has chosen meta urban design, known, also known as mud, um, which describes itself as a boutique, women run, design firm that, uh, in particular, does community engagement. By coincidence, I've seen some of their work when I went to Denver, and I think they do a very good work on pedest, they do very good work on pedestrianism. So I just wanted to reassure members of the public, who are, I think, validly concerned, that sometimes we give pedestrianism a short shrift, that they were hired, and you can look in the staff report, and you can look at their website and see if you agree with me that they were a good choice. And I just wanted to add, also, on pedestrianism, that although we've gotten away from just looking at safety, safety is important, of course, for pedestrians, I was happy to see that the staff report also looked at making it possible to walk in extreme heat via shade and so forth. And I wanted to add one more thing that I think mud focuses on to some degree, but also, to really make a community walkable, you need places to go. And that's something that members of the public have been emailing us about the potential loss of neighborhood serving, uh, retail, such as grocery stores and so forth, and I hope that will be a focus of our walkability, as well, because you can't walk places if there's nowhere to walk to. And, um, the second one I wanted to comment on is 4.5, which is the status update on Los Altos District School and City Park Master Plan. I just wanted to highlight it for the public in case people skipped over the consent calendar, that we found a location and rough plans for the San Antonio City Park, an adjacent school with some shared recreation space, and that you can look at that. If you look in the packet, you can see kind of a rough draft of how it might be laid out, and we are inviting community engagement around park planning. And, and also, there's the possibility of having some of the league sports there and maybe relieving some of our other parks of that particular activity. So I know the community has been very interested in that and wanted to highlight that as well. Thank you.

[01:18:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Council membership, Council member, Chel Walter.

[01:18:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um, I just have a brief, uh, comment on item 4.5, which is, again, the Los Altos school district, um, update, and, and I, first of all, I want to thank the staff for the update, as, uh, Vice Mayor Hicks said, there is a lot of interest in our community about this. And it's a very exciting opportunity. So it's really nice to see, you know, what progress has been made and kind of what the plan is for the next year or so. And I just wanted to also state that I'm particularly interested and make, and I think many people in our community are, and making sure that, um, our residents have access as much of the time as possible to the joint use open space section, which is, um, which has come up so much with, um, our other, you know, school district sites. So it's really important to us that, you know, we're giving this as park, um, uh, we're giving this with park money, and, um, uh, so it is so important that that people get to use it as much as possible. And it's really wonderful to see this progress, so thank you.

[01:20:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. There are no other questions or comments. The motion is in order to approve the balance of the consent calendar. Council member, Robbie Koga.

[01:20:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to go ahead and make the motion to approve the balance of the consent calendar, including item 4.one, adopted resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing and continuing virtual meetings of city council, committees, boards, and commissions, pursuant to AB 361 and making required findings to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and 4.2, adopted resolution of the city council, city of Mountain View, authorizing a local enforcement agency pursuant to assembly bill 1276 to be read entit To be further reading waived. Thank you.

[01:20:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Council member Matachek.

[01:20:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Well, 2nd the motion.

[01:20:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any questions or comments? If not, the city clerk will start the roll call.

[01:21:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Kobat.

[01:21:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: My

[01:21:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[01:21:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:21:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[01:21:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:21:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Shel Walter?

[01:21:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:21:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: By Mayor Hicks?

[01:21:15] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:21:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[01:21:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:21:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mission kerosene unimously.

[01:21:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you very much. I'm now gonna promote Dawn and head to panelist for 4.3 so hopefully they will. Momentarily. 4.3 is the shoreline boulevard interim bust lane and utility improvements. Um, there they are. Thank you for joining us. Um, I just, I don't want to belabor the point. I'm going to support the staff recommendation, but it's, it's a big deal for, um, a project on the verge of construction, um, to, uh, to be canceled for the contract to be, um, uh, to be terminated. So I wanted to better understand how we got here. Um, So I, I understood. I appreciated the staff report and, um, the, I guess the utilities that had previously been unidentified, uh, in the corridor itself. I want to better understand. Is it the fault of the contractor, you know, did the city not do sufficient due diligence? Um, I don't know if I, I don't expect this to happen again, but it might be an opportunity for us to learn. Uh, what could have been done better to make sure that we understand what's in the corridor before we tear it up.

[01:22:45] Don Cameron: Thank you, mayor. This is, I'm Don Cameron, public works director. regarding the utilities. As we mentioned in the council report, um, it was a relatively limited amount of potholing that was done to identify and confirm utility locations during the design phase. More should have been done. Uh, this really is a combination of both, um, staff, reviewing the scope of work with the consultant and working with the consultant, the design consultant. However, you mentioned lessons learned, and one of the things that we've definitely taken away, and we're being much more diligent about for our capital projects going forward, is we are doing a lot more potholing and just for people who want to understand what potholing is. It's when we go in and very narrow bores are done into the ground to confirm what our as built plans say, maybe the location of various utilities, water, sewer, telecommunications, gas, even underground electric if it's there. And it's very important when you do that during the design phase to identify whether there are unforeseen utilities. They might be so old, that they, they're not showing up on our plans, and that's one of the challenges we face with the shoreline court, or it's one of the oldest corridors in the city, and has turned out to have a lot more, um, unknown utilities than anticipated. So we are definitely using this as a learning experience in, um, doing much more active potholing, doing the design phase of our capital projects.

[01:24:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's helpful, and very quickly for members of the public, um, we'll go to the public comment right after questions, and then after public comment, we'll, uh, we'll take a motion. Um, and then the other set of questions I had has to do with, there were sort of 2 big reasons why the contract has to be terminated. That's one of them and then the other is the decision to eliminate the 2nd left turn lane, uh, from middle field to shoreline. Um, between the 2 which is the more significant change. Um, if it had, in other words, if it had just been the utility concern, would that still have required, the termination of the contract. What a change order has been more feasible. What's staff's assessment of that?

[01:25:17] Don Cameron: We've asked herself that, I followed up with staff, and it's really difficult for us to predict that. The utility changes were significant. But when we sat down to talk to the contractor, it was both the combined utility changes, as well as removing the left turn lanes and reconfiguring the intersection from the scope of work. And so, what basically led to the decision was the cumulative effect of both these scope changes. At this time, I couldn't tell you whether we could have successfully negotiated a contract amendment just for the utility changes, because that was not our focus in talking to them.

[01:26:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. Um, any other questions from the council before we go to public comments? If not, um, if any member of the public would like to speak on this item, 4.3 shoreline uh, interim bus lane, please raise your hand or press star 9. Um let's go ahead and allocate 3 minutes. Uh, 1st speaker is Albert Jeans.

[01:26:32] Albert Jeans: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez and council members. Yes, as some of you may know, I've long opposed the shoreline bust lane because even in pre-COVID conditions. I just could not see why it was needed because Google buses all its employees in off of the freeway. They don't use the transit center, and so who else is there to use it? But anyways, whatever it was, the justification was, they certainly assume that traffic was what it was at that time, and not what it is today. next slide. These are the pictures I took today. This is 101, which is pretty much back to pre-COVID conditions look like, maybe aggravated by the express lanes. Next slide please. But you look at Shoreline looking at both directions off the hour pass, it's really empty still. This is on Tuesday, which, you know, under Google's hybrid work system is probably one of the more busier days, they call a lot more people take Mondays and Fridays off. Next flight, please. And you look at the Caltrain parking lot. It's still pretty empty. You know, there's maybe 20 or 30 cars there. And, you know, granted that, you know, Google people are not parking there and going in, but I think it just shows that Caltrain is still way, radish is still way down. And so there's not many people going from the transit center to North Bay Shore, and going forward, we have no idea, you know, what it will be like going for, you know, in the next couple years, but the COVID doesn't seem to be going away, and it may be just a thing we have to live with from now on. In which case, I think that's step last slide. Okay. Yeah, I, you know, personally, I think this is a good chance to just pause this project, wait and see, you know, is this bus lane really going to be needed? You know, do we see traffic returning to Shoreline, or is Google's hybrid system going forward, gonna work like this, you know, from now on? And yes, North Bay Shore is coming up and maybe hopefully it will get built out. But if that's the case, there'll be more people coming out of North Bay shore than going in, or maybe there'll be comparable amounts, in which case a one-way bus lane is not going to do anybody any good. So maybe a redesign has to be done there as well. I do agree that, you know, we need to provide utilities for North Bay Shore, and I certainly like the idea of a better bicycling on Shoreline, but in terms of the reversal of a bus lane, I think this is a really good chance to pause it, I know you'll probably, you know, go ahead and, you know, approve it, but that's just my opinion. Thank you very much.

[01:29:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie. Tim, did you want to speak to this item?

[01:29:32] Tim McKenzie: Sorry about that. Yeah, yeah. That's the guy accidentally is. And, and, uh, would have comments but don't have enough to, I would be a waste of acting.

[01:29:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I'll put them together. under 80 seconds. So I apologize for that.

[01:29:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I think that concludes. Tim's comment. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, we'll return to council for deliberation and emotion. Council member labor.

[01:30:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, well, this is one moment, um, uh, Originally, came to us, and there was a very quick, um, about face on the, uh, the subject. Um, I, I really wish that I had, um, gone ahead and voted with the majority, even though I was very opposed to the change that was proposed so that I would be able to move reconsideration. Um, unfortunately, I didn't think about that till about five minutes later. And, um, I, I really strongly, um, feel that this is something that we will, um, end up doing in, in the near future. Um, when it's, uh, more expensive and and, uh, more of an impact on community members. And, um, I'm guessing from what's been presented to us that that, uh, there's no way to have, uh, say, council transportation or, uh, any committees take a look at that and, and see now with the knowledge of what we have. I know we're pretty pretty far downstream. Um, from that decision.

[01:31:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, was that a question for staff, just to clarify?

[01:31:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, I guess question to staff would be, um, do we have any possibility of unringing that bell or is that something that we're just kind of stuck with now at this juncture?

[01:31:52] Don Cameron: It would not be possible to reactivate this construction contract and work with this contractor. Um, should counsel want to reconsider adding the left turn lanes back to the scope of work? We staff would work with that and incorporate it in to rebid the project. But at the point that we're at right now, the project will have to go out for a rebid.

[01:32:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I would, I would like to see us at least have, have the opportunity to have council transportation, look at something that's such a major impact, um, in terms of traffic flow, and getting people to use public transit. And, and a, um, a monetary hit, to us as, as well. And, um, I'd be willing to make a motion in that direction, mayor, or, uh, if there are other council members who would like to comment.

[01:33:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so Vice Mayor Hicks is in the queue. Council number really good. Did you have any other?

[01:33:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No, I be prepared to make a motion later.

[01:33:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. Bye snare Hicks.

[01:33:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, maybe I could just wait for the motion, but I wanted to know exactly what you want to bring to the council transportation committee. You know, what are kind of the line items that you want to bring there?

[01:33:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Oh, sure, the mayor, if I may. Um, I'd like to see some consideration of the, the bus left turn lane, um, because I feel like when this came to us the last time, there was a, a very quick, um, about face on, on that issue. And, and I think it, given the, the expenditure, um, it would be in the public interest to bring it back and at least have an opportunity to look at it.

[01:34:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you for clarifying.

[01:34:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member of the Toga.

[01:34:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Mayor, um, so I, if emotion like that comes about, I will not be supporting it. Um, I don't think it was a quick about phase, we actually had our, I believe, our parks and recs commission. Like weigh in on that issue. Um, so I would think that we um, studied it quite extensively and I stand with the vote. Um, you know, this, I, I, caution that when we may take a decision, if, um, we're gonna keep revisiting it, it's just gonna continue to delay these projects and initiatives. And I hope that that's not something that this council, um, will be doing. Um, you know, we win and lose votes. And, um, if we lose, we have to continue with the consensus in the way that I've been trying to operate. So, I hope that we can continue in that civil manner. you.

[01:35:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And maybe a quick question for staff, then, um, the presumption is when the project is rebid, the design will include the, the elimination of the 2nd left turn lane. That's not something you're intending to revisit, right?

[01:35:40] Unknown Speaker: Yes, based upon the council decision last fall, the redesign will include eliminating, adding those left turn lanes, and reconfigurating the intersection to not have the double left.

[01:35:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Um, any other questions or comments, if not, emotion is in order. Council member leader.

[01:36:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor, well, go ahead and uh, attempt emotion, and then staff could weigh in on it, and let, let me know if it's, um, uh, sufficient in the direction that I'm trying to go. Um, like to, uh, move the, uh, staff recommendation and refer the issue of the 2nd left turn lane. On middle field to council transportation committee.

[01:36:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Is there a 2nd? Uh, I'm not hearing one. Uh, Unfortunately, the motion will not proceed. Um, council member Abi Koga.

[01:37:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to go ahead and um, make a motion to move staff recommendation of the original version. Thanks.

[01:37:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Mattachek.

[01:37:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. 2nd that.

[01:37:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show, Walter. you have taking your hand down.

[01:37:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Uh, yeah, I was just saying that, um, I think in a sense, I'm glad that we're going forward with it, or, well, I'm gonna be supporting this, because I think we should move forward with it. It's true. that, um, our traffic patterns have not gotten back to quite pre, um, pandemic levels, and we don't really know when that's going to happen. But in a sense, having a street to work on that doesn't have as horrible traffic as it usually does, is an asset. So I see this is an opportunity we should take, um, advantage of. Thank you.

[01:37:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any final questions, comments, thoughts? If not, I will ask the city clerk to proceed with the roll call, though.

[01:38:08] Unknown Speaker: Council member Abbey Yoga?

[01:38:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay,

[01:38:11] Unknown Speaker: council member Madachek?

[01:38:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[01:38:13] Unknown Speaker: council member labor?

[01:38:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No.

[01:38:16] Unknown Speaker: Council member show Walter?

[01:38:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:38:19] Unknown Speaker: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[01:38:21] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:38:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mirror wares? Yes. Ocean carries 51. Thank you.

[01:38:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so that concludes the consent calendar. Let's do oral communications from the public and then 6.one East Whisman precise plan and then we'll take a break as everyone comfortable with that.

[01:38:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, so item 5 is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic during this section, state law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items,

[01:38:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: what any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen, and we did have a request, um, before the meeting for, uh, uh, I think, uh, a speaker to speak on behalf of several others, uh, uh, city

[01:39:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: clerk, if you wouldn't mind assisting me. With that. I think they will go first.

[01:39:30] Tim Mather: Thank you, mayor. Yes, my name is Tim Mather, and I requested, please, that 3 of us be allowed to speak. Thank you for bringing that up. Uh, like to start with my neighbor, Michelle, please, who will be followed by Aaron, who will be followed by myself. We request a total of 9 minutes, a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker, but one contiguous block, if we may, to go through our presentation in a coherent manner. So, if I may, please, counsel, if I may turn it over to Michelle, please, to begin our presentation.

[01:40:04] Michelle Oyer: Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, yes. Great. Um, good evening. My name is Michelle Oyer. I'm presenting with Aaron Miller, and Tim Mather, we're residents at the crossings, and all of us have lived in Mountain View for over 20 years. The reason we're speaking tonight is because we've seen a massive surge of residential construction along San Antonio Road without any significant changes made to the existing infrastructure. Next slide. Specifically, these are the areas of infrastructure that are failing. Next slide? A major area of infrastructure failure is San Antonio Road. I took this photo when I was driving northbound on San Antonio at 1039 a.m. on a Tuesday. This is what we experienced daily. Next slide, please. On this map, we've labeled the 1.6 mile section of San Antonio Road that extends from El Camino to East Charleston. We're going to take a closer look at this section because it's used by residents of Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos to get to 101 North and South, and it's where major development has occurred recently. Next slide, please. The San Antonio Precise Plan created and utilized by the city contains critical flaws, no traffic analysis, and ridiculous traffic volume numbers. These are major flaws, allowing for the overdevelopment of this area. The consequence is park crossings and the surrounding neighborhood are no longer family friendly. Well, it's a painful memory for us all. The very real tragic consequence of having too much traffic around children is that a 13 year old child was killed on Grant and El Camino while riding his scooter to school. We cannot allow for tragedies like this to occur. Next slide, please. The addendum to the precise plan includes reducing peak hour traffic by 30% by implementing measures to encourage people to travel by bicycle. These numerical estimates are unrealistic. The reality is that with this massive surge in residential and commercial development in a small area. You now have cars, trucks, cyclists, and pedestrians, sharing the roads that have not been modified to meet this demand. Next slide, please. This is a list of recent development, along the 1.6 mile stretch of San Antonio Road. The current crowding and traffic backup on San Antonio will only worsen, as residents and businesses move into the lands be. Approving the seven story milk pail project will add to this congestion. Furthermore, we are talking about the safety of the neighborhood children who walk and ride their scooters and bikes, and now must share the road with additional cars and trucks. I'm asking you, as a resident and a mother, to consider how this development will impact our children. Thank you. I'm now gonna hand this off to Erin Miller.

[01:43:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Aaron, you're on mute, please.

[01:43:29] Aaron Miller: Yep. Can you hear me now, please? Yes. Thank you, Michelle. To summarize what Michelle just reviewed. This is a net ad of over 2000 residences in less than 10 years, and this is not replacement housing. This is brand new housing all within a small section, less than 2 miles long of San Antonio Road. Not an expressway, not an avenue, not a boulevard, San Antonio Road. All of this data that we're looking at comes directly from the city's own reports. Yet clearly, something has been lacking from the analysis of it. We've heard repeatedly the importance of parking, but that isn't easily mandated problem. Seldom mentioned is the vastly more challenging problem of coordinating three cities, and the required infrastructure changes, roads, electrical grid, networking, and telecom services, to sustain a modern lifestyle, that the residents of Silicon Valley demand and deserve. Next slide, please. It's been the fervent hope and overuse refrain of the real estate developers that Caltrain can easily offset this increase in traffic. But bear in mind, San Antonio is a limited service station and is already overloaded. Baby bullets regularly blow by it, because the next stop, Mountain View downtown, is a major stop and the bridge to light rail. It makes little sense for Caltrain to add another stop to their busy bullet schedule. How much more capacity is it reasonable to expect the San Antonio station to absorb? Next slide, please. Moving on to PG&E. As we all know, PG&E is a major bottleneck for a modernized and safe electrical grid, not just for our small area, but for all of Northern California. As this table shows, the area of San Antonio is already clearly overloaded, and little has been done to alleviate the added demands of an increasingly electrified society. Next slide place. In summary, without adding more by adding more residences and density, without coordinating an increase to the size and capacity of PG&E's grid to handle it, is simply a recipe for further outages. As someone who now works almost exclusively from home, this is a major concern for me, and I'm sure many other residents of Mountain View. And frankly, it's disgraceful to admit that within 1,000 feet of the lab that invented the integrated circuit that powers everything we do, and is the namesake for Silicon Valley, we all suffer from such frequent electrical outages. Next slide, please. This summarizes the impact on telecom. And I don't need to express that this is not a direct city responsibility, but it is the responsibility of the city to work closely with the mobile network operators. Next slide, please. And this is just a reality of modern life, that we are all in densely populated areas. We all use Wi-Fi. The city should be doing a better job at educating the population of how to work and live in more densely populated areas. There are many other facets to the quality of life that reflect a high quality of life that we all wish to have in Mountain View. I'm gonna pass the mic off to Tim for additional details. Tim and next slide.

[01:47:01] Tim Mather: Thank you, Aaron. My name is Tim Mather. I'm also a resident here, lacrosse teams. Um, council members, city staff, were frustrated. Um, we hear from the city staff that each plan is reviewed individually and to us, that's exactly the problem. It appears to us that the city is looking at these development projects through soda straws. Okay? Next slide, please. We want the city council to change its methodology, to look at the cumulative impact that all of these projects are having on San Antonio road, the area here. Okay? R 4, R 4, R 4, It's frankly, just too much. The infrastructure can handle it. Next slide, please. In summary, please, we're looking at a population density, and this was in 2014. The detailed 2020 census data has not yet been released, but according to 2014, we're looking at a population density already, that is one half of that of Soma in San Francisco. Is that really where we're headed? Come on. Okay. Already the San Francisco, probably the San Antonio Road corridor is overwhelmed. And if the city council goes ahead with the plans that are on the books now, it's only gonna get significantly worse. Our quality of life is deteriorating. And we believe that the city of Mountain View is failing to properly serve its residence. Next slide, please. What we would like the city council to do, frankly, is to reject the milk pail development. Okay? I don't even know why. We don't even know why the city council's even considering the exemptions requested by the developer. Something is not right here. We urge you to request, pardon me to reject that development. We urge you to request the Valero development when it's proposed to that. We understand that it's in the planning phase and not yet under consideration. We urge you to reject both of these projects. The current infrastructure and the projected improvements simply cannot handle those developments. Council members, staff, we appreciate your time. If rules, protocol, uh, permits, we welcome your questions. Thank you very much for your consideration.

[01:49:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your presentation. Unfortunately, we are not able to respond to, uh, during item 5 oral communications for the public on non agenda items, but we appreciate your presentation.

[01:49:40] Tim Mather: If I may,

[01:49:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, Tim, your time is up and we do have to be fair to everybody. Uh, so, uh, but, but please, you know, always feel free to uh, send us an email. Um,

[01:49:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: the next speaker is Tim McKenzie. From 3 minutes.

[01:50:01] Tim McKenzie: Greeting, so. Tim McKenzie, he him pronounced a resident of the Montaloma neighborhood. Um, I just, I, I'm sure most of most of you on council know me and I've been around for a little bit. I just, I want to raise attention to something. Um, I got an email within the past 10 to 14 days, the past week and half or 2 weeks. Um, from a city staff member of the city of Redwood City, and they were reaching out to me to let me know that about a year ago, I had reached out to them, um, and they wanted to follow up. The city of Redwood City is now providing period products in the municipal bathrooms, the ones that the city itself is able to provide products for. Um, and a, a, staff member reached out to me and let me know, hey, you reached out a year ago, and I just wanted to let you know that this was happening, and that, that was fantastic to hear, as, as an advocate, and the only reason it was able to happen is because the city of Mountain View had made that decision. So I really wanted to thank you everyone on council. Thank you for the work that you did to make this a reality in non-view. And for the encouragement that, uh, some council members gave me personally to go spread and ask for other local cities to do likewise. I appreciate your encouragement. I probably wouldn't have done it without your asking me to do so. And I appreciate that, and I want to highlight of, uh, what happened that when we as Mountain View made a model for other cities to follow, and they did so. It was, it's great to see, it's amazing, to see what we were able to do, take place in other places in, in the South Bay, and I hope that we can use this as inspiration so that we can think of things that we, as the city of mountain view as a municipal group, can make a decision about, such as, Municipal, uh, power so that PG&E is not getting uh, public or getting private benefits from making uh, not taking up.

[01:53:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry, Tim, you've exhausted your time. And I have to be fair to everybody.

[01:53:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Are there any other members of the public who want to speak on an item not on the agenda. Being none, we will proceed now to item 6.one East Wisman precisely on development, impact fee, nexus study, and East Wisman development, impact fee. Vice Mayor Hicks,

[01:53:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: do you have an announcement to make?

[01:53:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I do have an announcement to make. I'm recusing myself from this item due to my financial interest in a business entity located within the precise plan area.

[01:53:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, we will now proceed to the item. Advanced planning manager Eric Anderson will present the item. Welcome. And feel free to begin when you're ready.

[01:54:06] Eric Anderson: Uh, thank you so much, um, mayor and council. I'm actually also waiting for Renee Gunn. Uh, senior civil engineer who's gonna be presenting... Oh, there she is. So I will now share my screen.

[01:54:33] Renee Gunn: Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor Ramirez, Vice Mayor Hicks, Council members. I am Renee Gunn, senior civil engineer. Here with Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. Uh, tonight, Eric and I will be presenting the East Wisbon precise planned development impact fee and the Nexus study. Next to Studies and Development Impact Fees are programs that ensure that new development pay for the capital and cost incurred by a city associated with growth. The nexus study calculates the cost of capital improvement projects required to support the growth in the East Westmin precise plan. The cost is divided by the growth. The result is the feed or land use. The cost of the improvements cannot include efficient existing deficiencies, and the cost of area wide improvements, such as a bike lane, must be allocated proportionally among all the future users, both existing and new. One set of improvements that we included in the next study are transportation improvements. These include intersections, improvements that were identified in the East Westman precise plan, Traffic Impact Analysis. They also include the bike and pedestrian improvements outlined in the East Westman precise plan that will transform this area into a walkable, bikable neighborhood, including new and improved bike lanes, buffered bikeways, cycle tracks, and mid block crossings. Finally, the grade separated pedestrian and bicycle crossings of the light rail and 237 are included. There are three types of utility improvements that we included. To support the added future users, the East Western Precise Plan, Nexus Study, and Utility Impact Study, indicated that upgrades are required for specific segments of the existing sewer and water mains. Additionally, the next study incorporated the direction that council gave staff in March on the expansion of the city's recycled water system to serve the East Westman area. The results of the nexus study are shown here, as maximum justifiable fees, the council could adopt. Office and retail rates are per square foot, hotel rates are per room, and residential rates are per bedroom per dwelling unit. Eric will now provide the rest of the presentation.

[01:57:21] Eric Anderson: Thank you very much, Renee. Total estimated cost of improvements is about $151 million. Of this, only about $54 million can possibly be paid through the proposed fee. The remainder is the share of the responsibility due to existing buildings and pipeline projects that are exempt under state law. Note that more projects could be exempt under state law before the fee goes into effect. In addition, staff recommends the following exemptions to further support the vision of precise plan. One approved project should be exempt through the Ordinances pipeline provision. Affordable units should also be exempt, which would result in potentially a lost income of about $5 million. Neighborhood commercial uses should also be exempt, which would result in lost income of about $2 million. And government and nonprofit uses should also be exempt, but this would have minimal or uncertain lost income. With these exemptions, the revenue of the fee is expected to be about $46 million. The city council can choose to exempt or reduce fees for other land uses. However, this would reduce the fees expected revenue. The remaining costs would need to come from community benefits, tax revenue, CIP funding, or grants. This slide shows a total fee comparison for 3 hypothetical projects across several similar jurisdictions, including the North Bay Shore precise plan. They're expressed in terms of percent of market value. Attachment 5 to the council report had an error in Milpitas's data, and this slide reflects the actual amounts, showing higher fee burdens across Milpitas's residential building types. The East was a precise plan already has the second highest total fees for the apartment project after Milpitas. But it's competitive with Sunnyvale for the Condo Project and Milpitas, and competitive with several other jurisdictions for the office project. The proposed fees, nonetheless, would only increase the total fees on these projects by less than 1% of market value. Note also that the East Wismer precise plan has a job's housing linkage policy, which has the intended effect of shifting cost burdens from residential to office. In conclusion, here's a summary of the recommended fees. These fees can be updated annually, consistent with inflation as part of the annual budget process. I'd also like to note that staff is recommending a modification to the ordinance. This is in section four, previously approved development projects. This is the pipeline provision within the ordinance, and staff is recommending that the language shown here be added to the ordinance to ensure that projects with development agreements will pay the fee pursuant to their DA. So staff have 4 recommendations. First to adopt a nexus study. Second, to introduce an ordinance for the fees, with the modifications from the previous slide, to adopt the proposed fees and to establish the necessary accounts. This concludes our presentation. We also have consultants available from Will Dan, our consulting team, James Edison and Carlos Via Riel, and we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[02:00:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Does any member of the council have questions? Council member show Walter.

[02:01:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. I remember that we, there was a feasibility, a financial feasibility report, uh, done as part of the East Westman precise plan process. And basically, it showed that housing wasn't financially feasible. with our existing fees. So, um, how does that, um, mesh with what we are being presented with here?

[02:01:32] Eric Anderson: Uh, so the, the amount of this fee is small relative to other fees and and costs that are on residential development, there's also potentially a large variation over time in how residential development will be feasible, uh, as, as time goes on. In addition, part of the East Wisdom and Precise Plant strategy to address that feasibility issue was to adopt the job's housing linkage strategy, which is intended to shift costs from residential to office. Um, uh, nonetheless, as part of the, uh, housing element, we are looking at, uh, potentially reducing costs for residential citywide in various ways. There will be more information about that at an upcoming study session. And so in summary, I think those are different ways that you can consider adopting this fee, despite recent feasibility analyses, that show the challenge of building residential right now.

[02:02:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So, Eric, if we were to adopt it tonight, and then after we did the housing element in the, um, analysis, we would decide that that housing fees should be reduced, we would just come back and reduce these. I mean, how did that work?

[02:02:56] Eric Anderson: Yes, that could absolutely be an option.

[02:03:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Well, one thing I just really liked it. I like to congratulate you. I know this is complex. I'd like to congratulate you on working through it. And, um, also, I really appreciate the, um, uh, exclude the recommendation to exclude affordable housing. I think that that that is key. And later, I want to talk about maybe some other exclusions, but I think that's it for right now. Thank you.

[02:03:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Liberty.

[02:03:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I want to ask a question, which I believe I already know the answer too. But just for clarity's sake. Um, so under the state law, the city can only charge, um, their costs. Uh, is that correct?

[02:03:50] Eric Anderson: Uh, so the, um, the city can charge for the cost for public improvements. Um, and uh, can only charge for a portion of those costs, and they have to be capital costs. They can't be maintenance costs or operational costs. They have to be capital costs, and can only charge for a portion proportional to new growth. There is a small amount that can be added to the calculation for management of the fee itself, but those are the only things that can be included in the fee.

[02:04:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: But it, it must be a real cost. And if, if there were a holiday from having to pay that real cost, then the cost would still exist. So it would accrue to every other text tear, am I right on that one?

[02:04:52] Eric Anderson: Uh, well, potentially, it could also come from grants, uh, or, you know, other sources that wouldn't, um, uh, that may not necessarily come from the mountain view taxpayer.

[02:05:04] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:05:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Sounds member met a check.

[02:05:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So in the material on this topic. Um, it talked about the ability to update the fee from time to time if there was new information or things like that. And I was wondering if, The buildout, in terms of the number of units or the amount of square footage, um, is much lower than what is allowed in the precise plan, would that also be a reason for, um, taking a look at the fees because we'd be, uh, generating less, um, in fees than we were expecting?

[02:05:55] Eric Anderson: So, There's a chicken and egg issue with that question, and that's that we wouldn't know that the buildout is lower at the time that projects are built. Right? So, um, So we wouldn't be able to retroactively increase fees on projects that had already been built. Does that answer your question?

[02:06:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, yeah, I understand you wouldn't be able to do it retroactively, but if we see, for example, you know, we were estimating a parcel was gonna have 1,000 residential units, and the application comes in at 500, um, we pretty much know that it's half of what we're expecting on that parcel. And if we see that trend um, throughout the area. It's, um, I think we would know that there would be fewer units and less square footage, and therefore lower fees generated. Yeah. So for new applications, I'm talking about not retroactive.

[02:07:04] Eric Anderson: Yeah, absolutely. I, you know, 1st I'll say that that's not what we're finding with applications that we're reviewing right now. Um, but secondly, yes, uh, in the, um, uh, in the, uh, periodic, uh, review of the fee, um, you can't, you can go in and you can update any assumptions. Um, Community development directors, Shavostva, where you're going to say something?

[02:07:34] Aarti Shrivastava: Mayor, if I may, may address the council, our teacher, Vastav, assistant city manager and community development director. Um, a council member, Matachek, um, there are a number of issues related to the question you're asking. Um, and the key question is, is that amount of square footage still available in the in the precise plan to build? And if that assumption exists, then we have to assume that the improvements have to get built and assigned to the development per this study. If, at some point in the future, the master plan square footage is reduced, then you would have to look at what improvements are actually required to support the reduced square footage, and then build a next study on that. And then the last piece again is the question about, um, if the buildout is lower than the precise plan, can we change it? I would say that you couldn't just change it based on the buildout, unless there was some commensurate decision on the precise plan itself. The amount of improvements that are necessary to support the precise plan, and then the cost of those improvements. So a lot of numbers have to be revised or reviewed before we could make that decision.

[02:08:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so the amount of square footage or the number of residential units, um, is more The infrastructure is more sensitive. Tell me if this is correct thinking here. The infrastructure capacity, so to speak, is more sensitive than I might have thought to, um, the number of units or the amount of square footage. So you could potentially have a smaller water pipe. Because there's fewer units or less square footage. Is that what you're saying?

[02:09:26] Aarti Shrivastava: No, I'm not necessarily saying that, and Don can maybe answer that. Um, all of these, all of these improvements are based on uh, an EIR, that was conducted to study the amount of development in the precise plan. What I'm saying is that, um, even if the buildout is lower on a site by site basis, we would have to look at the overall buildout that is still in the precise plan. Look at the infrastructure requirements and then base any reductions or reassignment on that new number and the new infrastructure requirements. You may find that the pipes are still needed. You may find that, you know, the street improvements are still needed or you might find that some things have to be reduced. But what I'm essentially saying is they would have to be reviewed, um, before we could make those changes.

[02:10:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Um, that's my only question.

[02:10:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member Abikoga.

[02:10:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I had some questions regarding the retail, um, fee, and, um, Number one, um, could you explain what else, other than neighborhood serving retail, what other types of retail we have in this neighborhood?

[02:10:54] Eric Anderson: Uh, so, Currently, there is, I believe, a paint store on their child. Um, I mean, I wouldn't call that necessarily neighborhood serving retail. Uh, there's also the potential, although maybe an unlikely potential that, um, other, um, you know, maybe big box retail or some other regional retail may have an interest in locating in this area. Um, the, um, But, uh, the, the intent of the, uh, exemption is really to tie the, uh, the exemption, this incentive of the exemption to a legal agreement that would preserve the space as retail, uh, which is already a requirement to have it be exempt from FAR. So it would be part of that legal agreement, but it's an additional incentive to ensure that spaces are kept neighborhood serving retail and not converted to office over time.

[02:12:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. I guess I'm interested in just any kind of retail, given that retail has always been, at least in my time, a challenge to attract and to maintain. So, um, what was the thought in in that? I guess I'm always surprised that the retail fee is like one of the higher fees. And for me, I think that, you know, it's also mentioned in the Google letter, but with retail, um, and I know neighborhood serving retail in particular, but doesn't that actually reduce the, or potentially reduce the vehicle miles traveled. So why would we charge a higher fee?

[02:12:52] Eric Anderson: Yeah. So, we thought a lot about this. Um, because in North Bayshore, there's a similar fee, but, uh, retail is, um, not charged or charge the lower amount, I don't recall. But, um, and really the rationale there is North Bayshore, as everybody knows, is the cul-de-sac, right? There's very little travel, um, to North Bay Shore, foreigner neighborhood serving, uh, you know, goods and services. Um, and so you really can make the rationale that those goods and services are locally serving. East Wisman is not a cul de sac. You know, middle field runs right through the middle of it. serves neighborhoods on, you know, in Sunnyvale, serves neighborhoods in, um, in the North Wisman wagon wheel area, um, and even potentially further afield. And so, there is the potential that new retail will generate trips in the area. Um, and, uh, and because the improvements that we've identified are local uh, improvements. They're not regional improvements. Any reduction in regional travel. You know, maybe people deciding to go to a closer, um, grocery store. You know, instead of driving a little further to, um, Bailey Park or driving a little further to another grocery store. Uh, that's not actually reflected in the improvements in the, um, in the nexus study because these are improve, improvements serving this local area. Um, and so the additional trips that are generated in this area by those, that retail, uh, would would need a proportional cost to that use.

[02:14:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I guess I mean, it's still an little, confused because, And theoretically, or idealist, ideally, um, if we've had the neighborhood grocery store, wouldn't that reduce the trips to the Bailey Park Safeway, for instance. So it wouldn't it help? Um, yeah, reduce and and thus have less impact than, let's say, fulfilling.

[02:15:22] Eric Anderson: It could help on a citywide level. But it wouldn't help in terms of the use of the infrastructure. in the East Wisman area.

[02:15:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Even if it was like folks walking or biking to the grocery store as opposed to driving there.

[02:15:44] Eric Anderson: Well, So, so there's a broad range of different types of retail and different types of retail trips. And so we can't anticipate that, for example, somebody who lives on, you know, um, Tyrella or something like that would necessarily be able to walk to a grocery store in the middle of East Wisman. That's pretty far to go to a grocery store. Um, but the, um, The, the, Sorry, the question you asked was, would that, um, uh, would the, uh, reduction in virtual trips from mode shift have a, um, kind of reduce the effect of, um, of retail on the, Um, pursuant to the fee, right? I mean, I think it really comes down to, we studied this in the EIR. Um, and these were, you know, and the, the, the EIR that we, um, certified with the precise plan, um, had all of that as inputs. So the mix of uses, the access by alternative modes, the potential to use alternative modes to access neighborhood serving uses. And this was the output in terms of expected trip generation for these, uh, uh, these retail uses.

[02:17:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, so then, with the hotel, um, this, the, the potential TOT, um, tax revenue, get, um, What do you call it, counted or is that a part of the formula that was used to come up with the fee?

[02:17:50] Eric Anderson: No.

[02:17:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[02:17:53] Eric Anderson: Yeah, no, the TOT is not an input to the fee. Um,

[02:17:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I guess because I was, uh, it, uh, actually is similar with retail. I was looking at, you know, how does the sales tax, um, revenue from more retail and hotel TOT tax benefit the city? Um, you know, enough, like, is it enough to be able to offset some of these fees? Is my question?

[02:18:22] Eric Anderson: I see. I see. Take that over to the assistant, uh, city manager, community llama director.

[02:18:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Because we want more, right? We want more retail. We want more hotel. My concern is this, and that we've talked about this in other parts of the city, and that's why we have reduced the fees on retail, and maybe even, again, I can't remember what we've done with hotel elsewhere, but I guess I, you know, I feel the same, obviously, in this area of town too, where there is no grocery store, right? And right there and like, how do we get one? I see that might be neighborhoods. So maybe that's, you know, extraneous, but um, just retail in general, especially as it's becoming more and more challenging to sustain. I feel like, um, you know, if someone's interested in bringing in retail, we should be welcoming that and not adding, not putting on the highest fees on on that or even hotels, frankly. So sorry, that was commentary, but going back to, yeah, the question of how that's calculated in terms of the revenue, potential revenue, um, benefits would be helpful to understand.

[02:19:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Abi Koga.

[02:19:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I wanted to respond to the question about whether these were inputs and they weren't because the nexus study was based purely on the demand of each land use per square foot. And and the cost of the improvements. Um, the council may, as a policy, um, reduce that amount for various land uses. We obviously can't increase it because it's a nexus fee, but it could be reduced, um, based on the variety of factors that you mentioned. The only caveat that staff has noted in the staff report is we would have to find other sources of funding in order to fund the improvements. Um, and so, um, just wanted to clarify that, um, the inputs don't include revenue, but they include very specific, um, uh, you know, capacity demand and the cost of the improvements.

[02:20:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I understood that and I, um, I guess that's what I was trying to get at because I think, you know, there, there is that potential for revenue with hotels or retail that we wouldn't get from houses or offices. And so, That's is a factor there that I wasn't sure if it was included or not in the calculations. So thank you for clarifying that.

[02:21:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show Walter.

[02:21:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I have another question that came up listening to the discussion here, and that's about sort of the timing of setting these fees and sort of now and in the future. So, tonight, the job before us is to basically set the, as I understand it, is to set the, um, uh, the fees, the impact fees for the East Westland precise plan. And, and then every year, we, um, as part of the budget process, uh, um, set the fees based on whether they're, well, set the fees exactly for that year, right? And I guess my question is, you know, say, as a policy decision, we wanted to say, um, uh, we don't want to, as, um, Margaret was talking about, we don't want to have impact fees on commercial, because we want to encourage that. Can we, when we pass the budget, say, for the next five years? We're not gonna have, um, um, uh, these impact fees on commercial as a policy, and yet, we still have the fees on the books. So if that policy need... I mean, this precise plan is rather long lived. I mean, we're playing, it's to take, what, 20, 25 years to build up. So, you know, things could change 20 years from now. So, say, for the first five years, our policy decision was to exclude certain things because we want to encourage them. Would that mean we could never get fees back on these other things, or how would we go about doing that? Is that clear?

[02:22:54] Eric Anderson: Well, I'm I'm not 100% sure on the answer in terms of what would necessarily legally constrain the city, um, from adopting or putting a moratorium on a fee, if you will, during the annual budget process. I don't know what maybe constraints there are during the annual budget process for doing that. Uh, certainly, the council could decide to uh, lower or put moratory on fees um, without doing a new Nexus study without adopting new Nexus findings. Obviously, as we said before, that would be lost income, and there would not be an opportunity to get that money back at any time. Um, you wouldn't be able to put that onto future, uh, development, for example, increase the costs on future development to earn it back. Um, And I'll see if anybody else knows anything about the budget process, uh, to answer the question about how much flexibility we have during the budget process to modify fees. Uh,

[02:24:08] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Council membership, Walter, I think we're going to have to take that question back and review it because this is a nexus study and I want to make sure we're doing a due diligence. Um, so I we can't answer it. Tonight.

[02:24:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, what I'm really under, well, I, well, I think all of a lot of us are interested in is the diff, the difference between, you know, the nexus study, we're, we're being asked to, um, approve this nexus study, and, and setting fees for the plan. And really, what I'm interested in is, what's the term of that plan? Does that mean if we set a moratorium for five years or 10 years to encourage, say, um, housing to be developed quickly, that, um, uh, we couldn't, you know, 15 years from now, come back and say, Now, you know, uh, we don't have as big a housing crisis anymore, so we're going to, you know, we're gonna, um... We're not gonna have a moratorium anymore. That's the kind of thing I'm interested in. So, um, thank you.

[02:25:11] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah. Council member, I think, I think, it would have to come in concert with, um, the funding strategy for CIP, if the council still wants to see the improvements being done. And I think we're gonna have to, if the council needs to make an informed decision, we would have to bring back some kind of a plan that would allow us to look at this. Um, you know, at page 10 of the staff report, and maybe, Eric, you can confirm this, um, notes that the, the retail would, would bring in, um, about 18000000 or so. Um, so that's the impact, um, we would see, um, if the council were to not adopt, um, the fees on retail and close to one. for hotel. So. Thank you.

[02:26:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Director Cameron, did you want to speak to this?

[02:26:11] Dawn Cameron: Yeah, I do appreciate it. Thank you. I just want to add on to what Assistant City manager, Sofastra, I was saying, was that, as this growth occurs, there is an expectation we're going to deliver this infrastructure, and we're going to need a funding strategy to do so. And as noted, based upon what's recommended here, including go ahead and exempting affordable housing, exempting neighborhood commercial, the amount of fees that's projected to be collected won't, will come to about a third. I, as I recall, of these total capital costs. So it is going to be a challenge. for us to fully fund this infrastructure and get it put in place in a timely manner as this development goes in.

[02:27:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Libra.

[02:27:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Question for staff. Uh, is affordable housing currently, um, protected from some fees?

[02:27:20] Eric Anderson: Yeah, the affordable housing does not pay uh, Parkland dedication fees.

[02:27:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And what's the, um, the ratio of size between the fees that are proposed here and the parkland, is parkland more expensive or less expensive?

[02:27:38] Eric Anderson: Parkland dedication fee is 10 to 15 times higher than this proposed sheet.

[02:27:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Um, and then the other thing that I wanted to ask, um, I, I have not heard about the state potentially picking up the tab for uh, local communities that don't want to fund their baseline infrastructure. Um, so, if we couldn't get, if we did decide to declare a tax holiday for whatever sector, um, then, and, and we don't have the state or the federal government coming in to pick it up and, and hard to get grant funds for something like that. Would that just come out of our general fund that we use for our sustainability and mental health and affordable housing? Uh and everything else?

[02:28:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, go ahead.

[02:28:41] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, go ahead. Leaper. I was going to mention that since these are capital projects, The 1st place we would look to is our typical CIP funding sources. So we would have to see how much of our existing CIP funding sources could absorb the cost of these capital projects, which means, of course, we're doing trade-offs with other capital projects that we could otherwise deliver.

[02:29:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:29:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you I have one question just to clarify the fees have not been adopted yet. So they were not an input into the housing element constraints analysis, but staff intends, presuming the council adopt the fees, to include the new impact fees in the constraints analysis for our housing element, is that right?

[02:29:36] Eric Anderson: Yes.

[02:29:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you for the clarification. Any final questions from the council before we move on to public comment. Being none. Um, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Go ahead and allocate 3 minutes. The 1st speaker is Celine.

[02:30:08] Celine: Hi. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I come to these city council meetings because most of my friends have been priced out of the area because of the housing crisis. Um, I just want to start with the basic fact that, um, is incontrovertible. Housing is infeasible in East Westman. The only reason housing is able to get built in East Switzerland is because the bonus office, AR, that was set, according to a 2019 study, done by the CFO consultants. So housing is already infeasible. And the question is, now that housing is infeasible, do we want to add another $19000000 tax on housing? Um, and in my opinion, we shouldn't do this because it's pushing us further and further into this corner of relying on office to pay for housing. So when staff says we're solving this problem because we have this linkage fee, or this linkage, um, that's basically admitting there's no way we're going to resolve our job's housing imbalance because we're banking on more jobs in order to build, uh, build more homes. So, you know, it's true, this is not that much worse. I mean, in comparison to our parkland fee, this is a relatively small tax bill to put on housing. But when we've already made housing and feasible to build on its own, why are we continuing to go down this direction? I mean, we're forcing ourselves. to increase the job's housing imbalance. So, I don't think this is the right thing to do. You should just index the fee based on what other comparable cities are doing. You have that data in front of you, it's in table six. Um, a maximum allowable impact fee does not mean you have to approve that amount. You can improve anything you want underneath that amount. So, I would, I would recommend, just approve what other cities do so that we don't add another constraint to this project. And something to note, Our housing element draft, as it's written, really depends on middle field getting past the finish line. And so we can get land for this affordable housing. You can ask staff this. Like, the way we've drafted our housing element. We're really hoping that the pipeline can get us more, like the majority of our low income units. And if that doesn't happen, we have to redo a lot of our analysis. So, we can't make this housing infeasible. We need the middle field project to succeed. And so I really, I think we should think twice about imposing an impact fee much higher than comparable cities do. Thank you.

[02:32:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[02:32:49] Kevin Ma: Evening Council. My name is Kimma, and I like to echo most of the points, the Salima has brought up. We've had a lot of discussion from 590 about the impact of new office development on the jobs and housing balance, and as the consultants have found for East Wizman is, Basically, we're kind of assuming hot out of office and not much housing to actually match the demand for the office. So. And we are not making housing any cheaper to build. We've been making it more expensive. Understand that the edits that staff I brought up show in the staff package shows that Milpitas is much higher in college, but still, we should not be comparing ourselves to making housing extremely expensive, if not impossible, to pencil out in the 1st place. So I do think that we should be paying attention much more to feasibility about actually building things because, you know, in these situations, there is an option of people not doing things. There's no products being proposed, no off. It allows to be proposed. So, which is not really a great solution when the housing crisis is ever growing more painful by the year. Because if you don't build anything and people still come here, It just causes everything to get really expensive. And, I understand, we are coming back with a re look at the parkland dedication ordinance, and they impact thesis toast here with that, but still, every time we just add another fee, it's just reducing our ability to dress the housing shortage.

[02:34:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is David Watson.

[02:34:38] David Watson: Hello, uh, I, uh, pretty short comment. Um, I, uh, just want to say, uh, almost exactly echoing what each of the previous commenters has said. Uh, but, uh, you know, just because, uh, the, uh, we figured out what the maximum legal limit of how much we can charge is, doesn't mean that that's the right number to charge, and, uh, as staff notes, it's probably a good idea not to charge the maximum. Uh, for, um, you know, multiple different reasons, especially affordable housing. Um, you know, higher, higher fees are, uh, You know, just a small part of what drives an affordability in this city. So, uh, it's, uh, that's, uh, that's all. Thank you.

[02:35:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Being no other speakers in the queue. We will return to the council for, uh, deliberation and action, and I will note that a motion to approve, the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions and ordinance attached to the report. There are no questions or comments. Emotion is an order. Council member labor.

[02:35:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Oh, go ahead and make a motion. The time is right. I'd like to, uh, move that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View to adopt the East Wisman Precise Plan Development, Impact Phoenixus Study, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Um, 2nd that we introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, ending chapter 47 to the Mountain View city code, regarding precise plan development, impact fees, and the East Wisman precise plan development impact fee to be read in title only for the reading wave to instead of 2nd reading, for June 14th, 2022. Uh, 3rd that we adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, adopting rates for the East Wisman Precise Plan, Development, Impact Fee, and amending the city of Mountain View Master Fee schedule to include such fee, to be read in title only, further reading, waived. And last, that we authorized the financed and administrative services director to establish necessary accounts for the new impact fees. Thank you.

[02:37:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City clerk, did you want to speak quickly?

[02:37:12] City Clerk: I just want to make sure that that included the amended text. Um, That was referenced by staff earlier for the ordinance.

[02:37:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[02:37:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you for the clarification. Council member show, Walter.

[02:37:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I wanted to bring up the idea of, uh, I was really pleased to see that, that the staff recommendation, including, included excluding affordable housing, and, um, uh, the, Affordable housing and uh, retail development, and uh, what was the other one that, um, the government, nonprofit. I thought that was good. But I would really also like to entertain the idea that we exclude, um, regular residential, um, or that we reduce the, um, amount, uh, that is, um, is charged for resident, the residential fee. And I wondered if the maker of the motion would consider that.

[02:38:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Before we do that, council member, Show Walter, let's do a quick check to make sure that's a second council member, Mata check. Did you wish to second the motion?

[02:38:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Absolutely, I'll second the motion, then I also have comments.

[02:38:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Now back to you, council member.

[02:38:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, my, my concern about that is that, um, I think we might be getting into, um, financially unstable territory with it, um, not, not knowing exactly how we would, um, pay for that without, um, borrowing from other capital improvements project, and then ultimately the general fund that we use for many things, including affordable housing would be the last stop. And, and I think in staff could correct me if I'm wrong on this, that we've fulfilled something like 300% of our, our most expensive, uh, housing. And so I think the affordable housing is what is critical right now, um, I would be leery of, um, putting ourself in a, in a financially risky position to underwrite, uh, you know, more expensive housing, uh, more, um, market rate, which we know is, is so, um, Um, out of reach of, um, the individuals that we most need to serve in the community who do not have the housing. I think the figures that I saw was, you know, we've fulfilled 300 and something percent of the highest cost housing. So, I would be concerned about just putting it out there, and I know that I read in the staff report that it would be a loss of, um, $19 million, and, um, so, I'd be leery of that. Maybe, perhaps, if we came back and said, Okay, we're gonna cut out the sustainability. We are gonna cut out the mental health unless we can find other capital projects, like, the sidewalks that are falling apart that we need to take care of. And, um, to give a holiday to, um, developers who are building, uh, ex expensive and and sometimes speculative real estate. Uh, I'd be very nervous about the budgeting impact to that. I don't think we can. Uh, we can find it going into the next 2 years, but affordable housing fully on board with.

[02:40:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um. All right, well, I, I, uh, I'm also really interested, um, and, uh, what? Uh, Mr. Anderson said about the evaluation of our entire fee structure that we're going to look at in the housing element. It wasn't completely clear to me that, actually, we were really looking at the entire fee structure or just impact fees, when, for instance, park fees would be folded into all that. Maybe staff could respond up. When will the park fee, all of the fees, including park fees, and when will we be looking at all of that with respect to supporting housing and not functioning as a deterrent housing?

[02:41:49] Eric Anderson: Well, I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves in the housing element. That's going to be in an upcoming item. Um, And, uh, there will be some opportunity to discuss, um, how, um, the city will uh, carry out ongoing programs, to look at fees and and, uh, you know, address them, uh, as well as development standards. Uh, suffice to say that uh, there is a draft program in the housing element that is, um, a kind of general review of development standards and feat. Uh, and so we, um, it is it does not have a, um, it may not have a specific effect on this fee. Um, but that's in, in addition to another program that is specifically targeted to, um, that, uh, well, that, it's specifically about the parks and recreation, uh, strategic plan, which is, um, going to address the, um, uh, going to proposed potential modifications to the, uh, park line dedication. So there are a lot of these things going on, sort of, um, in parallel that will be considered either in the housing element or shortly thereafter. That's what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right, well, um, yeah, I'm really, I'm really interested in including, uh, housing or or reducing the housing amount. Thank you.

[02:43:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: A quick clarification, uh, for staff, uh, the affordable housing exemption applies both to 100% affordable housing and also below market rate units in market rate housing, right?

[02:43:40] Eric Anderson: Yes that's the case.

[02:43:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fantastic. Thank you for clarification. Council member about a chat.

[02:43:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, actually, before I start, um, at least on my screen, our city clerk froze, and I wasn't sure if we, um, really answered the question, um, about the motion. Did we get, did we do everything we needed to do?

[02:44:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that, um, the motion included that amendment, so,

[02:44:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, so um, I am supportive of the staff recommendation. Um, I think I was, um, a little bit surprised at the amount of infrastructure we do need to add in the East Wisman area, given that, um, it's surrounded by, um, more developed areas, and in comparison to, say, North Bay Shore. And this fee, even if there was full buildout, represents 35% of the total cost. So there's still quite a bit of cost that we need to either fund from city resources or get grants or, you know, anything else we can do to help with, you know, almost two thirds. Which is a sizable number. Um, and it's money that, you know, isn't being spent on other city services. And I think we need to keep that in mind. Um, you know, I appreciated the discussion about retail because we certainly do need more retail in the Lisbon area. Um, but, I, I will say that, um, places like, uh, Dollar Tree and, um, the restaurants in that same shopping center. They are definitely regional, um, serving and not just neighborhood serving. Um, and I guess I can, uh, those are places I frequent and, you know, you hear people talking and they aren't from this neighborhood. Um, but those are such great restaurants and great places to shop that they're driving from other cities to go to those locations. So, um, I appreciate, um, the exemption for neighborhood serving, especially, say, a grocery store, um, but we do have, you know, regional retail in this area. So I'm okay with what staff proposed. Um, And I do appreciate, you know, the other exemptions. I think that makes a lot of sense. So, um, I'm happy, well, I 2nded the motion. I'm gonna support it. Thanks.

[02:46:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member of a Koga.

[02:46:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, Counselor Medichek, um, said a lot of what, um, um, I was thinking as well. Um, I, I, uh, appreciate that, um, we do need to make these infrastructure improvements. Um, you know, I've said time and time again. We can't just build houses. We have to build neighborhoods and infrastructure and services to support those houses. Otherwise, we just have houses and not a community. Um, so, um, it's important and, you know, my question is if we don't have these impact fees and where else are we going to get the funding and I know there's some opportunities, but that they're, you know, they're always, um, potential and not guaranteed. And so, um, in light of the fact that this is just a 3rd of the, the cost estimates, I think we do need to move forward with impact fees. Um, I was interested in seeing if we can just, you know, eliminate retail completely. Um, because, again, I'm looking for revenue generation, frankly. Um, as council member, labor mentioned, you know, we do have to think about our financial situation. And, um, you know, we're continuing to convert, um, commercial and industrial into, um, housing, um, because we need more housing, but we do need to sustain the city and our services. And so we also need to be mindful of how to pay for all that. And so we need to be looking for revenue generation. Um, so I would be interested in all of, or eliminating all of retail and maybe even reducing hotel, but, um, I guess what I was thinking of is, um, maybe could, I, I think do we, I know with some of the other fees, we've brought them back after a couple of years to see how they're doing and adjust them if we need to. Like, could we, is that the plan? Like, can we review these after 2 or 3 years to see, um, what the effects are, and then adjust accordingly, if, you know, we see that it is becoming a deterrent for retail or hotels? Um, if I'm fine with that approach. Um, if folks just want to move ahead with these fees tonight. Um, but I do think that we should review, um, the impacts of these fees in terms of what kind of development is actually happening.

[02:48:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Staff respond to that? In terms of bringing it back in a few years time. Um,

[02:49:04] Eric Anderson: Council member, um, I, uh, if the, if the council is interested in following up on, Either suspending or reducing the collection of fees, you would still go ahead and adopt it, and then, you know, define a period of time for which it will be suspended or or reduced. That's how we would recommend because otherwise you'd have to go back and study. The nexus, do another study to reissue the fees. Um, I don't know if um, uh, public works director has any additional input.

[02:49:43] Dawn Cameron: I, I think what's being asked is if the fees are adopted as recommended tonight. Can we, in a couple years or 3 years, Just look at how they may have impacted development decisions. And then deciding if, uh, they want to reduce the fee in the future. And I was just wondering, since, as we've said, it comes back as part of the budget every year. you know, the, the, the, inflation costs that you can do, is a discretionary decision being made by the council every year about the fees, or whether you want to increase them by inflation. And, perhaps in a, in, you know, if we're asked, you know, in 2 or 3 years, we could do a quick analysis that talked to whether or not we think how it might be affecting development decisions.

[02:50:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: That's exactly what I was trying to say. So is that the intention that we would have to approve these every year with the CPI increases and then, at some point down the road, do a quick review if we see certain unintended consequences to the fees.

[02:51:04] Eric Anderson: I would just add that, yes, the council can choose to do that, but we might have to go back, through the mitigation fiat process, to increase the fees in that case. We can't just reinstate those. The easier way to do that would be to adopt the fees and then choose a period, to suspend it, or reduce it, after which it starts taking effect. If the council chose not to adopt it, you would have to go back through the process, most likely.

[02:51:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, in light of that, then, um, I, Well, I think, I think I'll just support the motion as is, um, one commentary on the housing piece. Um, you know, I, I, I agree with council member labor, um, affordable housing is really the focus, I believe, that we need, we need to focus on. Um, and one thing about affordable, um, that I've learned and mentioned before is that with 100% affordable projects, um, we don't get the property tax on that. So we're already losing funding from that. And so, um, you know, I know we will exempt affordable here, but, um, we have to offset the cost somewhere. And I agree that the market rate is, um, you know, it's, it's, it's not, the fees, yes, impact the cost, but, um, there is some flexibility and variability in the cost of housing, um, because frankly, it is the developers who set the prices. And, um, you know, they, they do, um, I think they do have room for, um, you know, they, they set certain, um, goals for, for profit, but there is some variability there. So, um, I think that with the fact that, um, you know, the office will offset the costs and, I think that was my big, um, Surprise was the office square footage cost was so much, it was like the low or one of the lowest, if not the lowest fee, um, and I think that given that we've heard office is really the, you know, lucrative type of development. They probably can, um, take some offset or take some of the the costs from the residential side. So, I think it'll balance out. Um, so I'm uh, comfortable with moving forward with this. And let's see how it goes.

[02:53:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thanks. Thank you. Council member Showles.

[02:53:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just gonna bring up one more thing. I think just as a matter of principle so that it wasn't, uh, unanimous, I'm probably gonna vote against this, but, but, uh, I wanted to bring up that this is really a great time for us to be getting funding for infrastructure projects from other sources. I mean, the federal government this fall, past the, um, bipartisan infrastructure law, which is a $1.2 trillion law. Now, infrastructure infusion. Now, granted, that's got to be shared hundreds of different ways. But still, it is a major source of grants that we haven't always had. And we may not have. Those funds will be expended for the next five years. And then another thing that puts us in a really good position. Again, at the moment, is the surplus that the state has. I think it's $92 million, $92 billion this year. So, uh, a great some of that money is going to be spent on housing, supportive, um, things, and infrastructure. So, right now, we do have better opportunities to go for grants, and in the next few years, than we have in the past, and we probably will, 10 years from now. And I just wanted to let people know that, that this is a moment in time where, uh, we, in a sense, are more grant rich than, um, than normal. And that's a good thing. Um, thank you.

[02:55:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? Uh, if not, we've got emotion, uh, from Council member, Lieber, seconded by Council member, member Mattachak, for the staff recommendation, as amended by staff, um, I think the only thing all that is, uh, one of my favorite history lessons is from, uh, the North San Jose area development policy, which was approved almost 20 years ago, and Council member Robbie Kogan, and Don, you might actually know more about this than I do. Um, they approved a tremendous amount of development in North San Jose, and then to incentivize it, the city dramatically reduced the impact fees. uh which were supported by a nexus study very similar to this. On, on the, the industrial development specifically. And, uh, understandably, that created a deficit, they could not fund the transportation needs, and so what they did was they plugged in all of the projects that would have been funded by those fees into 2016 BTA measure B. So they took San Jose's problem and made it yours and mine. Um, so something to think about. Um, I'm going to support the staff recommendation. Um, city clerk, would you mind initiating the boat call?

[02:56:47] City Clerk: Council member Liebert?

[02:56:49] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[02:56:50] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek?

[02:56:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:56:52] City Clerk: Council member Abby Coca?

[02:56:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I.

[02:56:55] City Clerk: Council member Shalter?

[02:56:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No.

[02:56:59] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez?

[02:57:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:57:02] City Clerk: Motion carries 41.

[02:57:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. It is 830 colleagues, that means I am 042, as you will recall from the beginning of the meeting. Um, let's take a 10 minute break and then so we'll reconvene at 840 and then we'll begin the final item.

[02:05:28] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Welcome back, everyone. It is now 840. We will proceed to item 7.one. adoption of resolutions to prohibit oversized vehicle parking on narrow streets, and streets adjacent to class 2 bikeways, and introduction of an organ, and adoption of resolutions to prohibit parking of all vehicles from 2 AM to 6 AM at designated locations. Translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreters. ,

[03:08:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[03:08:41] Unknown Speaker: When is noches enemos interpretation, en españolis ponibles, selecione radio, maque corresponda, selecione el icono de interpretación conon globo en apartenferio de la pantaya, selecione el idiom Español. Gracias.

[03:08:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. This item has been segmented to allow participation by council members who have conflicts of interest and will be recusing. As a result, the process for this item will be as follows. The 1st part will be the staff presentation, and we'll proceed to public comment, and then recommendations one and 2 will be considered together with council member recused. Recommendation 3 will be considered with council member, Medicheck recused. Recommendation 4 will be considered with council member Abikoga and vice mayor Hicks for cues. Recommendations 5, 6, and 8 will be considered by the full council. Recommendation 9 will be considered with myself recused, and finally recommendation 10 will be considered by the full counsel. Public works director, Don Cameron will present the item. whenever you're ready.

[03:09:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, we need to, oh, no, she's here.

[03:09:52] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Hello. Hi. Let me just share my screen, please. Um. There we go. And give me just a moment. Okay, I assume you can see my screen, mayor?

[03:10:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:10:17] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you very much. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm Dawn Cameron, public works director. Joining me to help answer questions is Lorenzo Lopez City Traffic Engineer. In 2019, the city council adopted ordinances to prohibit oversized vehicle parking on streets with bike lanes and on narrow streets. Foreign enforcement, the street segment subject to the ordinances must be designated by council resolution and signs installed. Tonight, staff is recommending that council adopt resolutions to add street segments subject to the bike lane and narrow streets ordinances. Since council adopted the resolution designating streets subject to the bike lane ordinance in 2019, staff has identified 4 street segments with bike lanes that should be added to the list. The green arrows on this map point to these segments. The resolution designating narrow streets, adopted in 2020, included 444 street segments, based on a review of the city's 140 mile street network, and measuring 475 street segments. Due to the large quantity of streets requiring measurement and verification, staff anticipated that there may be additional street segments that qualify as narrow that were missed in 2020, and therefore staff started compiling a list of street segments to measure. 53 segments were reviewed during the last couple of months, which resulted in the following findings. The streets measured that were previously designated as narrow in the 2020 resolution were all confirmed to qualify as narrow. 35 street segments that were inadvertently not measured in 2020 have been identified as narrow. And 2 street segments, not previously identified as narrow, were remeasured and determined to qualify as narrow. Staff recommends council adopt a resolution, adding these 37 street segments, identified in green on the attached map, to the list of narrow streets. When counsel adopted the ordinances in 2019, counsel also approved a motion for staff to review the parking restrictions on streets greater than 40 feet wide and return with any recommendations for modifying these parking restrictions. Staff reviewed the no parking, no stopping anytime, and the timed parking restrictions, and determine that the locations where these restrictions exist are appropriate. Staff, however, found that the use of the signs prohibiting parking from 2 to 6 a.m. warranted additional evaluation. These signs are posted on 38th Street segments throughout the city. Some of these streets also have other parking restrictions in place, including narrow streets, bike lanes, and timed parking restrictions. A few are located in residential areas. However, most are located in commercial industrial areas. The existing signs were installed by staff on a complaint basis related to long-term parking of various types of vehicles. As part of the evaluation process, notices were mailed to all property owners and tenants along the streets with existing overnight parking prohibition sites. The notices indicated that the city is evaluating the no parking signs on the street fronting their property, the possibility the signs may be identified for removal, and invited their comments. Of the 57 responses received, 48 requested the signs remain. and expressed a variety of concerns primarily related to long term oversized vehicle parking being allowed on these streets. When staff evaluates the use of the 2 to 6 a.m. signs, staff considered that parking restrictions should serve a safety or community purpose with a reasonable justification that can be applied to similarly situated locations. In addition, the type of parking restriction should be appropriate to the parking issue being addressed. For instance, 2 hour parking limits are used when there is a high parking demand location in a retail area, where is desirable for parking to turn over frequently. In reviewing the 2 to 6 AM parking prohibition, staff determine that they do not address traffic safety. They can, however, protect sensitive land uses from middle of the night activity, such as residential and ecological or habitat areas. Staff reviewed the concerns submitted about removing the signs, and determine that these concerns are best addressed through other means. For instance, concerns related to use of driveways can be addressed with red curve to preserve site lines and turning access. Concerns related to public health and safety could be addressed through enforcement of other city codes and laws. Based on staff's assessment, it is recommended that the signs be retained on H Street segments which are located in residential or habitat areas. The red lines on the map indicate which street segments are recommended to retain the signs, and the blue lines are the streets where signs would be removed if council adopts the recommended resolutions. In addition, it is recommended that the city ordinance for prohibiting parking from 2 to 6 a.m. be amended so that this restriction would only apply to street segments designated by city council in a resolution. The recommended effective date for the new ordinance and resolution is April 30th. This will provide time for staff to evaluate the streets where the signs will be removed to determine where red curb may be needed at driveways and intersections for sight lines. In addition, staff will meet with concerned property owners and tenants to provide information about city codes and laws that address their public health and safety concerns and discuss a process for them to work with the police department when problems arise, and enforcement of these codes and laws is required. In summary, staff recommends counsel adopt the resolutions for designating streets subject to the bike lane and narrow streets ordinances. Introduce an ordinance, amending the city code related to prohibiting parking 2 to 6 AM, and adopt resolutions designating streets to have parking prohibited from 2 to 6 AM. This concludes staff's recommend presentation.

[03:17:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Does any member of the council have questions? All right, uh, then would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hands button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. So this is the opportunity for members of public to provide comment, please raise your hand. All right. Uh, let's, let's go with 2 minutes. 1st speaker will be Michael Mansfield.

[03:18:16] Public Speaker Michael Mansfield: Hi there. Thanks for, um, taking my, um, my call in. Um, I'm a landlord, and I wanted to voice my opposition to allowing RVs and campers and other vehicles to camp out overnight and sleep in their vehicles on Wyandott Street. Um, I operated my business there, um, for 25 years between 1980 and 2005. And I went through the hell when they had vehicles parking out there. And it was a mess. It was unsafe, and additionally, our employees in our customers had no place to park. Um, I, um, I sent in my opposition. When it was 1st asked in April, and I never received a reply or any comments from that, and I did ask for comments, but nothing came back until, literally, on this Sunday, they sent me a copy of this agenda, and I was outraged. I did reach out to my tenants. Um, who um, operate 2557 Wyandot now, and, um, that's cobalt, power systems, and I wanted to read their comments. There are routine full size semi trucks that make deliveries during business hours, with the semis trying to maneuver, and rig loads unloading on Wyandotte Street in the middle of the street. So if you had parking overnight, people stay there, and it's impossible. There's also a school on the street. And there are, as you see, I'm running out of time. So, anyhow, I'll just, um, thank you, and I strongly encourage you to not pass that on Wyandott Street. will be a disaster.

[03:20:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker is Edie Keating.

[03:20:31] Public Speaker Edie Keating: Hello? I remember many years ago, when I used to see RVs on Leghorn. The then one day the RVs were gone, replaced by the no parking 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. signs. Much of Leghorn and Independence, dominated by large storage sites, has little foot traffic, few driveways, and RVs parking on the street would have little impact. Of course, large vehicle parking will only be possible if bike lanes are not added. If bike lanes exist or are added to every street that is not narrow, the council will have ended RV street parking in Mountain View. What would happen if RVs are legally banned from Mountain View? Will the residents leave? Will they move to smaller vehicles? Their community connections will not be quickly abandoned. This was easily shown with a recent shuffle on Croissanto. One thing we do know, while Project Home Key on Leghorn has helped many individuals and families, it has not ended homelessness in Mountain View. Neither will removing these signs, although it will be a benefit. Even on streets like Logue and Clyde, where there are bike lanes, there is also room for parking and smaller vehicles, may be able to safely park there. If the no parking 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. signs are removed. Some of the streets. So overall, I support the staff recommendation. I'm happy that this item as promised has come back to you. It will be a benefit to remove the no parking overnight signs, and I hope you proceed with that. Thank you.

[03:22:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[03:22:26] Public Speaker Kevin Ma: Evening again. I have very mixed feelings about this agenda item. I do agree with the last speaker that the overnight parking signs removed is a good thing. It is opening up streets to, right now, technically everywhere is illegal too, overnight park, but, you know, changes with what reality indicates. I do worry that, given the juxtaposition with the rest of the, out of streets to the RV bands, basically, is that there are plans for the streets in the current overnight parking list that will later probably be added to the narrow streets or bike lane ordinances, because there are either bike lanes there, or maybe there's another measuring. So I do caution to think that this would alleviate those that do live in oversized vehicles. I still oppose an oversized vehicle band, but I understand that counts as a little hands tied at this point, but I still feel like council should provide greater direction to ensure that RVs do find a place to be. As we solve the news at Cresanto. It is, unfortunate, very easy to drive him out of the city. When reality, we should not be doing that. We should be ensuring that people have the dignity to live, because they are members of the community, and I wish to see the city do better on that aspect. Thank you.

[03:23:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Sebastian Brisblow.

[03:24:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bastian, are you able to unmute yourself?

[03:24:12] Sebastian Brisblow: Hello. Uh, can you hear me?

[03:24:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:24:16] Sebastian Brisblow: Okay, great. Well, yeah, I would, uh, I just wanted to call in to, um, speak, uh, similar to the previous 2 speakers of, I, I think it would be great to remove these, um, overnight parking band signs from the selected streets in, um, this agenda item. I think that makes a lot of sense. If, if we keep these as well as expand, um, parking bands in various areas, um, it's just gonna make the situation worse overall, not better, of, because people are still relying on their vehicle to surviving, and they're still a part of this community will just push them out to different areas. And I'd like to see the city, find other solutions, to help people, of have a safe place to park rather than just push them out of the city. I find that extremely unjust. And as far as expanding the, uh, oversized vehicle parking ban. I wonder how the street measurements are being done and how the ordinance actually defines them if there's an exact point on the curb or whatnot that needs to be measured and find it a little ridiculous that the measurement changes by, like, such small amounts, and it is or is not either, you know, considered an era street, and maybe council has some leeway to define that in a way that Um, isn't up to whoever is measuring it at that moment. Um, thank you.

[03:26:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Eva Tang.

[03:26:10] Eva Tang: Hey, counsel, just testing to see that you hear me?

[03:26:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:26:17] Eva Tang: Okay, thanks. Um, yeah, I'm another caller, um, calling in to support, uh, removing, um, parking, uh, prohibited parking between the hours of 2 and 6 and I, uh, don't agree with these resolutions, um, designating more streets to prohibit oversized vehicle parking. I hate the oversized vehicle parking band in the 1st place. I'll put that out. Um, We've seen uh, this economic crisis really hit low income people the most, and these people already hit don't really have anywhere to go. Um, it. It doesn't make sense in a month that we've declared mental health month, uh, to enact more policies that would, uh, be detrimental to people's mental health, like removing a possible, um, place that they can park safely. Um, I understand that. This is a tough decision because there are people that are dissatisfied. Um, with oversized vehicles being on their streets, but I don't think these people want to be um, on the street like that either, but I don't think that there are solutions. Um, right now that would allow us to keep these people from parking on the street, um, using that as a way of housing. Um, I just think it's incredibly inhumane. Um, and, um, some of these people have kids that need to go to school as well. Of course, they're near schools. Um, people need to access services, even if they don't have a home just like we do. Um, so that's my piece. And I will turn my time back to the council. Thank you very much.

[03:28:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The next speaker is Bruce England.

[03:28:04] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England speaking for Mound View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. In short, we stand behind the staff recommendations and ask you to approve those. Um, the bigger picture is, as you all know, housing and everything related to that is a huge issue. It isn't just this part of it. The parking allowances, but safe parking and supportive housing, affordable housing. Um, and all of that goes along, that it's a huge challenge, and the fact that staff can do the work they do around all the moving parts is impressive. So, again, we recommend that you approve the staff recommendations on this item. Thanks.

[03:28:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is my.

[03:28:58] Public Speaker: Hi, um. I recommend that uh, remove design of no parking because a lot of people, like a lot of family, they have 2 or 3 more than 2 car, 3 cars, and they need to park. And since there is a sign, no parking, a lot of people couldn't park, and that's not right. And at the same time that, um, the housing cost in mom, you are so expensive, it's an outrage, and we push, um, the middle income people or the low income people out of the mom, you, but, uh, however, we still need them to work for, uh, in, uh, restaurant industry and everywhere, and um, they don't have a place to stay, and mom, you, didn't have, um, housing, uh, to offer for them, so they only stay in the car. We have to um, give them the chance to have a place to park. So we need to open more, instead only a few designated place. Thank you.

[03:30:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Alex Brown. Oops. Sorry. Let's do Daniel Halsey, and then we'll go to Alex Graham. All right. Thank you.

[03:30:30] Daniel Halsey: Um, I think, you know, this is a very kind of difficult thing to contend with. I think, uh, It's a case where the stated rationale for the, the policies that we're looking at here is different than the actual intention. And, uh, the actual attachment of these like overnight parking bands in Mountain View is to push out poor people. And I think that, uh, you know, that needs to be contented with more more directly. So, uh, you know, take taking down some of the, uh, the, the signs is good. Uh, some of this other stuff where it's like we want to have, uh, you know, restrictions on nearby lanes and things like that. You know, I ride the bike lanes a lot. Usually the problem is not these oversized vehicles. Um, so, uh, that's my comment, and I'll give you the rest of my time, I guess.

[03:31:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Alex Brown.

[03:31:44] Alex Brown: Hey, friends. I agree with the previous speakers largely excluding the commercial landlord. I think that staff is doing a good job of trying to find regulations that are serve a good purpose in a, you know, parsimonious way. So good job on that. I think it's something we need to continue doing because laws and regulations like this should serve the people of the city and do as much as they can to protect people and help the people here. But I'm speaking mostly just on behalf of my local community. We have a lot of development going on in North Bay Shore right now, especially around Santiago Villa. And there are many residents of San Diego Villa, who park on the streets on Space Parkway or La Venita, who are affected by the overnight parking. Uh, a lot of their, those parking spots are slated for removal, with updates to the precise plan and some of the development at Microsoft. And so the Zorbato project. So, uh, Yeah, giving them more time where they can park overnight and hopefully eventually figuring out a solution where they can find a way to keep their cars that don't fit in their driveways would be really nice. So thank you.

[03:32:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are any other members of the public wishing to speak? Being none, we will return to the council, uh, for deliberation and uh, serious emotions. Uh, but 1st we have to go through the segmented recommendations, Council member Lieber, do you have an announcement to make?

[03:33:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I will be recusing myself on recommendations one and two.

[03:33:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Or were you looking for more than that?

[03:33:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, I was, I was, so that the agenda flow has, I think, recommended language, but I'll defer to the city attorney on whether that needs to be read precisely.

[03:33:43] City Attorney: Um, I think that's fine. You can just clarify that it's in light of your proximity to, um, streets that will be considered in those 2 resolutions.

[03:33:54] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, indeed, it's because my proximity to treats that will be included in recommendations one or two.

[03:34:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much. The council will consider adoption of a resolution designating Calderon Avenue as a street adjacent to a class 2 bikeway, attachment one to the council report, an adoption of a resolution designated Yosemite Drive, as a narrow street attachment to the council report. City attorney.

[03:34:26] City Attorney: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I was just going to clarify that council member labor should log off, but, um, Oh, I still see her there. I think in light of the recusal.

[03:34:37] Unknown Speaker: There we go. Okay, thanks. Go ahead.

[03:34:41] Unknown Speaker: No worries.

[03:34:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the clarification. Does any member of the council have questions on these items? There are no questions. The council may now deliberate and take action on these 2 items. I will note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the 2 resolutions attachment one attachments one and 2 to the council report. Council member Abby Kogan.

[03:35:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Come here, I'll go ahead and make the motion. So, this is for one and 2, not to resolution of the city, Mountain View, amending resolution number, 18409 designating one street or portions thereof where oversized vehicle parking adjacent to class 2 bikeways is prohibited, pursuant to Mountain View City code section 19.79.3 to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and adopt resolution of the city council, the city Mountain View, amending resolution number. 18533 designating one street, Yosemite Avenue, or portions thereof, where oversized vehicle parking on narrow streets is prohibited pursuant to Mountain View City code section, when 9.79.4 to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:36:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice mayor Hicks.

[03:36:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I 2nd that motion.

[03:36:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? If not, the city clerk will conduct the roll call.

[03:36:19] City Clerk: Council member Abby Koca?

[03:36:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye.

[03:36:23] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[03:36:25] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:36:26] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek?

[03:36:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:36:29] City Clerk: Council member show Walter?

[03:36:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:36:32] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez.

[03:36:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:36:35] City Clerk: No, she carries me an animal, son. Very much.

[03:36:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We'll now proceed to the next item. Council member, Lever is invited to return. Uh, Council member Mattischek. you have an announcement to make?

[03:36:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I do. Thank you. I have a real property interest in close. Solution.

[03:37:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Thank you. Counsel, now. Consider adoption of a resolution designated Walker Drive is a narrow street attachment 3 to the council report, does any member of the council have questions on this item? There are no council questions. The council may now deliberate and take action on this item. Uh, a motion to approve. The recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution. Council member Abikoka.

[03:37:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I will make a motion to adopt resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View amending resolution number 18533 designating one street, walker drive, where portions thereof, where oversized vehicle parking on narrow streets is prohibited pursuant to Mountain View city code, section 19 dot 79.4 to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:38:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank very much. Is there a 2nd? Exnair Hicks.

[03:38:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I can 2nd that motion. Thank you. I'm actually gonna make a, sorry, mayor. I'm gonna make a comment along with that. This is so segmented. I don't know where to make the comments, so I'll just randomly put it here. I think just, um, for the benefit of the public. What I see happening here is that, um, the, uh, the oversized vehicles are gonna be able to move into some of our more, um, commercial and office spaces. And the feedback I've been getting, and I'm sure other council members have, as well, from the developers and owners of those spaces is that they're not particularly happy, but I have met with several of them. And they are, because this is more visible to them, the, um, I mean, frankly, the problems of homelessness are more visible to them. I've been meeting with several of them, and they are expressing a willingness to partner with the city to come up with solutions. So I'm hoping that, and quite frankly, it's the huge growth of jobs and the difficulty finding housing, the expensiveness of housing, that is one of the big factors causing this problem. So I'm, um, you know, I'm happy to see that people are, now that the, this problem may be more visible to some people, that they may want to partner and help us help us solve the problem. So I would say that's the positive part of the direction we're moving in tonight. And with that, I will second this moment. I will second the motion. you. Thank you.

[03:39:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, we might want to keep the comments fairly narrowly scoped to just each of the streets or street segments that were, uh, commenting on, um, or that we're deliberating.

[03:40:04] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I think, fair point, but now, that's something that the full council may want to consider.

[03:40:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, any questions or comments? Specifically about walk or drive. If there aren't any, then um, we'll begin the roll call.

[03:40:23] City Clerk: call call. Council member, every Hilda.

[03:40:29] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[03:40:30] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:40:31] City Clerk: Council member Labor. Council member, Shell Welchair.

[03:40:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi,

[03:40:35] City Clerk: Mia Ramirez.

[03:40:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:40:39] City Clerk: Ocean carries unanimals.

[03:40:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And we'll invite council member Mattachek to return. Um, and we'll move on to the next set of recommendations. Council member Abitoga and Vice Mayor Hicks, do you have announcements to make and let's go in that order?

[03:40:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I have a real property interest in close proximity to Blossom Lane, a street designated in the narrow streets resolution identified as attachment forward to the council report. So, I will recuse myself from consideration of this resolution.

[03:41:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[03:41:17] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And I also have a real property interest in close proximity to Blossom Lane, a street designated in the narrow streets resolution identified as attachment 4 to the council report, so I also will recuse myself from consideration of this resolution.

[03:41:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The council will now consider adoption of a resolution designated Blossom Lane as a narrow street attachment for to the council report. Does any member of the council have questions on this item? Uh, if there are no council questions, the council may now deliberate and take action. Uh, and I will note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attachment forward to the council report. Council member Leaver.

[03:42:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, thank you, Mayor. I like to move that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending resolution, number 18533 designating one street, Blossom Lane, or portions thereof, where oversized vehicle parking, narrow streets, is prohibited, pursuant to Mountain View City Code section, 19.79.4 to be read in title only for the reading waived.

[03:42:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. And Council member Mattachack, is that a second? Fantastic. You're cutting out a little bit for me, council member, Matt a check, just a heads up, that might just be me. I'm not really sure. Um, are there any comments or questions? If not, then I'll have the city clerks conduct the roll call.

[03:42:58] City Clerk: Council member Liebert? Council member manager check?

[03:43:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:43:06] City Clerk: Hands a member show, Walter?

[03:43:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:43:09] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez?

[03:43:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:43:12] City Clerk: Motion carries me nameless.

[03:43:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and will now invite council member Abbe Koga and Vice Mayor Hicks to return.

[03:43:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um. Hopefully they will do so momentarily.

[03:43:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, the full council will now consider the balance of the streets to be designated as narrow streets or adjacent to class 2 bikeways, as well as the introduction of the ordinance to amend prohibited parking, between the hours of 2 AM, and 6 AM, attachments 5, 6, and 8 to the council report.

[03:43:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Does any member of the council have questions on this item?

[03:43:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'll give, uh, a council member show alter.

[03:44:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um, I I wanted to make a comment. I'm following up. Is that is this an appropriate time for a comment? Or will we do that?

[03:44:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, this is fine.

[03:44:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, um, yeah, I wanted to follow up on what, um, Vice Mayor Hicks was talking about and what we heard, um, several of the, uh, um, the residents who came and spoke to us discussed. Um, and that is that, that there needs to be a, a place for, um, people in RVs to go that, um, is acceptable, and, you know, that works for everybody. And it seems like, in the last couple years, we've demonstrated that we can do that with our safe parking program. We, we, you know, we've tried for a long time to get that off the ground, and it, it really didn't work until COVID, um, when the, when the county came through, and, and helped, um, with one of the legal issues so that we could, we could have a safe parking lot without going into the long term, uh, RV parking, um, business, which, you know, which nobody really wanted to do. So anyway, we've demonstrated that safe parking really does work. Not only does it get the RVs off of the street, It provides them with a safe park place to park. It provides kind of a community for those residents. It provides them with services. They sign up with case managers and get assistance and moving into better, more stable housing. So I think that, um, you know, with this, this, uh, this exercise we're going through now is largely kind of a, a large whack a mole project. You know, we, we're saying you have to move from this area to another area. But it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. And I think we need to make a new effort to solve that problem, again, and get some more safe parking lots. So I hope that that's will be one of the outcomes of this, um, of this whole problem, is that we will, you know, we will find some more spaces to, um, have safe parking lots. And, um, and assist people and getting out of their RVs and into more stable housing. And I'd certainly be glad to hear what other people think about that.

[03:46:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, any, so it sounds like you're concluding your remarks. Council member Mattachek?

[03:46:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. and I apologize if I'm freezing or breaking up here. Um, is it better now? I didn't do anything, but yay. Um, so, uh, you know, I do have concerns about removing all of the no parking between 2 AM and 6 AM. Um, I'm especially concerned about the impact on our businesses, um, especially our small businesses that often rely on having access to that street parking for their customers. Sometimes their employees as well. And also, a lot of our small businesses are in, um, low one story buildings. And they do need to be seen, um, by, uh, driving by, walking by, biking by. Um, and they do need to be seen. Um, and so it really concerns me that we would impact their business. Um, so I hope through all of this, we can find a way to help them, um, because it is important to keep our small businesses, especially in business, um, and serving our community. So, um, I do have concerns about removing the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. throughout the city. Except for the streets that were identified by staff. Thanks.

[03:48:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Take a quick... Or to the city attorney, if you don't mind.

[03:48:16] City Attorney: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. Um, I don't want to interrupt, but I think we need to be really careful not to talk about the 2 AM to 6 AM ordinances. We've, In light of the, you know, numerous um, recusals that have to go through for each one of these ordinances and resolutions. Um, When we get to the 2 AM to 6 AM, we do have one more recusal and we've put them in order so that these discussions do not impact those who are recusing. So, if we can, you know, um, keep your comments to the narrow streets and bike lanes, resolutions right now. And then as we get to the 2 AM to 6 AM, it will be more appropriate to have a full discussion about that just so we're careful.

[03:49:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[03:49:18] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Um, What I wanted to, um, bring up is that I hope that the individuals who spoke and talked about, what was the methodology and and, uh, can we fudge on it, et cetera? Really urge you to read the staff report and read the repeated effort that went into making a fair and objective and repeated measurements. Um, and et cetera, and, um, I, uh, I also hope that at some point we can deal with the issue of the truck trailers that are just left. You know, I guess for months. I've heard that from a number of folks that a truck trailer will just be left on the street with no truck to pull it away. Um, for months at a time. And, um, I've not given up hope of a, um, A commercial provider, being able to provide, um, RV spaces, I've looked at the map recently, and there are some of those, uh, still around. They're, like in the range of a $1000 a month. So it's, you know, more expensive than living in a shared apartment, um, for sure. But I hope that we can look at that. And I hope that we can continue to look at the issue of the vehicle rentals on the street where, uh, there's a... a landlord, or a vehicle lord, or whatever they're called, that, um, owns, um, many minivans, or, um, SUVs, or what have you, and they just, um, rent them out, and, and you get to rent it. Uh, for, like, upwards of 900 a month. And there's a lowjack on the steering wheel, so you can't drive away, but the, the, the vehicle lord will put the, put the vehicle wherever you want it to be on Mountain View streets. And I think we need to do some outreach and try to try to understand what's happening there so that people aren't gaming the system. Thank you.

[03:51:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, city attorney, you still have your hand up that you want to speak.

[03:51:45] City Attorney: No, I'm sorry, I forgot to lower it.

[03:51:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worries. I'm the member of Ikoga.

[03:51:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I kept going up, lowering and putting my hand up because I wasn't sure. When I can and cannot say, but, um, I guess I just wanted to, um, uh, respond a bit to Councilman Michelle Walters' comments. Um, I, um, it's been interesting. Recently, I've been doing some precinct walking for other folks in other cities. And what I've noticed is that many of the cities around us, including San Jose, have parking restrictions on most of, at least the streets that I've walked, um, in neighborhoods. And, um, you know, as much as, uh, I mean, I'm very proud of what we have done in Mountain View. Um, but I, you know, would remind folks that this is a regional issue. Um, and we really need the partnership of all communities, all cities to come forward, um, to with solutions. Um, to that regard. I recently, I listened to a presentation by Move Mountain View, and they had updated that Palo Alto, the city of Palo Alto, has a few safe parking lots that are opening up. And when I found what interesting was that, um, the city, I think, is providing one space, but or one parcel, but, um, a lot of the churches have actually come forward and offered their parking lots. And, you know, we haven't had that success here in Mountain View and, um, you know, I had asked, um, the presenter, what the thoughts were around that. Um, I guess, and when I think about it, when I was visualizing it, a lot. I guess there's a congregation. Not no pun intended, but a congregation of churches in a certain area. I think it's like mid midtown Palo Alto. So, because of their proximity to each other, apparently, that's, um, encouraged churches to participate or whatever, and I think maybe they're collaborate and partner to make this program work. Um, so, uh, you know, that would actually, um, gave me, uh, hope that maybe more private, um, churches will step up, um, also does that, you know, another city is, you know, participating, um, that should help, that helps. Um, because frankly, Palo Alto has had parking restrictions on their streets for much of a very long time, I've noticed, um, and so, um, you know, I think it's important that all the communities um, participate. So, you know, we do our part. I think we've done, frankly, more than our share. Um, I know that we like to do that. But there are limitations in terms of land, and frankly, costs. This is not, you know, it is a cost to us. We pay the county to provide those services, which I still don't understand because county the county is supposed to get the funding for homeless services and whatnot, but we pay them to do it. So, you know, I think we have to be, again, be mindful of that. And the, that, um, we need to, um, you know, be fiscally prudent, um, and frankly, um, ask our neighbors to neighboring communities to help out in this regional issue. Thanks.

[03:55:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Council member, Matt. Thank you. I just want to clarify. We've got so many sections here. Lots of recusals happening. Um, I just wanted to make sure, um, I heard correctly that we were covering 567 and 8. Next. So the agenda plus is 568. 2 resolutions and introduction of an ordinance. Right. So that does cover, um, some of the 2 AM to 6 AM. And that's why I made that comment.

[03:56:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's like eight. I, I'll, uh, defer to the city attorney. So sorry if I wasn't supposed to do that.

[03:56:23] City Attorney: No, she is correct. I'm sorry. I heard you say the balance of the items, and I didn't realize that we that included the ordinance. I didn't realize that we had moved into that. So I apologize, um, council member, Mattachek's comments with regard to the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. ordinance was appropriate, and if other council members would like to discuss that ordinance, that would be appropriate at this time. I'm sorry, I just missed it when you said the balance of the items that we were on the ordinance. Thanks. Director Cameron?

[03:57:01] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would like to clarify again. The ordinance is simply amending the current city code about 2 AM to 6 AM parking. To say it's only on streets designated by city council by resolution. So the ordinance is not addressing the locations. Oh, nor the criteria or the decision points related to the locations themselves. It's, I, so I think that's part of what the city attorney was trying to get to is, talking about the ordinance itself is, do you want to adopt these by resolution going forward? But talking about specific locations, we need to wait until the resolutions are discussed.

[03:57:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Smur Hicks.

[03:57:58] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I was just gonna make a short follow-up comment on, uh, something that council member at Vicoga said that, um, it's important to have regional solutions, and I want to, um, wholly agree with her and say that one of the things that I found positive when I talked to some of the business owners who, uh, if we go through with everything on the staff recommendation would be effective, is that they were, um, they were landlords, office landlords for large corporations with, um, with locations in multiple cities. So we did have a short conversation about how this has to be a more regional solution, and if we partner with them, that it would have to be, not just in Mountain View, it would have to be elsewhere as well. So, um, I wanted to make that clear. Thank you.

[03:58:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. There are no other questions or comments, uh, the, uh, emotion is in order for the 3 items that are part of this segment. Eisner Hicks.

[03:59:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I will make a motion to, I hope I'm in the right place because I was recused for a while. I hope I'm at the right point in the meeting. To adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending resolution number 18409, designating 3 streets or portions thereof, where oversized vehicle parking adjacent to class 2 bikeways is prohibited, pursuant to Mountain View City Code, Section 19.3, to be read entitled only for the reading wave. Also, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending resolution number 1853, designating 34th Streets, or portions thereof, where oversized vehicle parking on narrow streets is prohibited, pursuant to Mountain View City Code, Section 19.79.4, to be read in title only for the reading waived, and to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 19, Article 8, Division 3, section 19.71 of the Mountain View city code relating to prohibited parking between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. to be read in title only, further reading wave, and set a second reading for June 14, 2022. The effective date of the ordinance is August 30th of 2022.

[04:00:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Is there a 2nd? Council member Liever. Thank you very much.

[04:00:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any questions or comments? If not, we'll conduct the, uh, the vote.

[04:00:47] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:00:49] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:00:50] City Clerk: Counts member, Libber.

[04:00:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:00:52] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koga.

[04:00:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[04:00:54] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[04:00:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:00:58] City Clerk: Council membership Walter?

[04:00:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:01:00] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez.

[04:01:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:01:03] City Clerk: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:01:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Now it's my turn. I have to recuse myself on the next item. I have a real property interest, I guess, a leasehold interest in close proximity to San Antonio Circle, a street designated in the overnight parking resolution identified as attachment 9 in the council report. So I will recuse myself from consideration of this resolution.

[04:01:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good luck.

[04:01:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Good luck. Okay. So, um, Well, I will be the chair while the mayor is recused. The council will next consider adoption of a resolution designating San Antonio Circle as a location to prohibit parking between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. attachment 9 to the council report. Does any member of the council have questions on this item?

[04:02:00] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So seeing no... Oh, I do see a question. Council member.

[04:02:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, you're moving on. Um, so, seeing no questions, the council may now deliberate and take action on this item, I'll note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attachment 9 to the council report. Um,

[04:02:26] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Showalter?

[04:02:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I was going to make a motion. Adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, designating one street or portions thereof, where parking is prohibited between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., pursuant to Mountain View City Code, Section 19.71, to be read entitled only, further reading waived. The effective date of the resolution is August 30th, 2022.

[04:02:58] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And do we have a 2nd for that motion? Uh, council member, Abbe Koga?

[04:03:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: A 2nd tip?

[04:03:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, um, if there's no further deliberation, uh, can we uh, take a vote?

[04:03:14] City Clerk: Council member, shall Walter?

[04:03:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:03:21] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Coco?

[04:03:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:03:23] City Clerk: Council member Liebert?

[04:03:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:03:26] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[04:03:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:03:29] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:03:30] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:03:31] City Clerk: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:03:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So next we will wait for the mayor to return.

[04:04:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, Let's see. Full council will consider the last item, the balance of the locations to designate for prohibited parking, from 2 AM to 6 AM, attachment 10, the council report. Any questions, or comments, or emotions?

[04:04:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Hicks.

[04:04:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'm ready to make a motion. Um, to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, designating 7 streets or portions thereof, where parking is prohibited between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. pursuant to Mountain View City Code, section 19.71, to be read in title only, further reading waived. The effective date of the resolution is August 30, 2022.

[04:04:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: you. Just for a second.

[04:05:03] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Second the motion?

[04:05:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Final thoughts or questions? If not, we will take a vote.

[04:05:13] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:05:15] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:05:16] City Clerk: Council member Abby Coco? Council member Lieber.

[04:05:20] City Clerk: Council member Manachek?

[04:05:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:05:23] City Clerk: Council member show Walter.

[04:05:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:05:26] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez?

[04:05:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:05:28] City Clerk: Motion carries unanimously.

[04:05:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: much. Piece of K, right? Uh, now we will proceed to council staff committee reports.

[04:05:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I want some never met a check.

[04:05:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks very much. Um, I have a few things. Um, I attended the League of California City's City Leaders Summit, which was in Sacramento, uh, for 2.5 days, and there were lots of good sessions, and opportunities to meet with our elected representatives in Sacramento. Uh, I also participated in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board meeting as the alternate, uh, for council member Abe Koga. And, um, one of the most important topics that was discussed there was the upcoming reach codes for 2022. Um, as the state updates their building and energy codes. So, um, Look forward to that later this year. And, um, I also participated in the Bosca, Bay Area, Water Sufly, and Conservation Agency, uh, board meeting. And I want to reiterate, as I'm sure everyone knows. Uh, we are still in a statewide drought. And while different um, systems, water systems are in different states of, um, Well, they have different amounts of water, let's say it that way. Um, it's up to all of us to conserve water. Um, because we might come to the point where we need to help a neighbor. And so everyone needs to do their fair share. And I know we keep on saying this. Um, but we really do need to conserve water. Um, and certainly when it comes to outside watering, that's probably the most important, um, area where you can conserve, um, Bosca as well as other agencies, uh, have a lot of, um, advertising going on to remind folks that were in a drought and to conserve. And I'm sure we'll be seeing that for a while. Um, it really is a, you know, serious situation throughout the state. And, um, I participated in one of my favorite events, which is National River cleanup day. Where throughout, um, Santa Clara County and the rest of the U.S. You sign up for a location, um, where you go pick up stuff that, um, is in the creek beds. And I always sign up for Stevens Creek in Mountain View. And, um, I I was surprised, pleasantly surprised. Um, that there was less stuff. And I'll say stuff because it's a wide variety of things. Um, that were in the creek bed this year in comparison to all the other years I've done this. Um, didn't come across any microwave ovens or tables or chairs, or refrigerators. Um, But we still had quite a few shopping carts. But, you know, less of the little stuff, I would say. Um, which, you know, I'm hoping that's not a one shot thing. I'm hoping that that's a trend. I kept on asking the folks who organized it if they come out the day before and done an initial round of cleanup. And they promised me they hadn't. Um, but it's, uh, you know, there's a large group of people that does this, um, and, um, it feels really good to do something to help the environment because, um, stuff that goes into the creek bed, goes into the creeks and finds its way to the bay. Thank you. very much.

[04:09:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Counselor Mediche for covering the clean energy board meeting for me. Um, I also attended the Cal cities, um, city summit in Sacramento and, um, wanted to make a couple announcements. Um, uh, well, part of that, during that time, I was also, I attended the cities association board meeting, um, where we passed our upcoming budget for the upcoming year, um, and I wanted to just make an announcement, encourage, um, my colleagues. If you haven't signed up already. Um, we will be having our general meeting um, on June 9th at the Winchester House in San Jose, um, with a speaker, um, Russ Hancock from Joint Venture Silicon Valley. So, um, if you're able to attend, it would encourage you, um, to, um, join us. It should be a interesting and it's just a, it's a good opportunity. We are in person. I know that, um, it's a bit challenging still, but, um, if you're able to and comfortable feel comfortable. coming. It's just a great opportunity to meet up with our colleagues throughout the county on other city councils. And then I also wanted to mention that this Thursday marks the one-year anniversary of the unfortunate tragedy at the VTA, um, yard, um, and there will be a, um, event, uh, at 9 AM at on the 526 Resiliency Center located at 353 West Julian Street in San Jose. And so, um, for anyone who would like to participate, um, please feel free to join in. Thank you.

[04:11:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And council member, I'll be okay, if you wouldn't mind soon, um, a reminder email or some of some of the information to a couple.

[04:11:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other, uh, questions, uh, or comments or reports? If not, we'll proceed to closed session report.

[04:11:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City attorney load. Do we have a closed session report?

[04:11:40] City Attorney: No, there's no closed session report this evening.

[04:11:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, we will now adjourn the meeting. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. Our next city council meeting will be held on June 14th, 2022. Until then, stay healthy. I'm 44.

• ← Previous
• Next →